

<^-^f 



THE 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL 



PAPERS 



OF 



DANIEL WEBSTER, 



fc&Mle Secretary of State. 



NEW YORK: 
HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, 

82 CLIFF STREET. 

1848. 












Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand 
eight hundred and forty-eight, by 

Harper & Brothers, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District 

of New York. 



INTRODUCTION, 



The condition of affairs in the United States, on the acces- 
sion of President Harrison to office in the spring of 1841, was 
difficult and critical, especially as far as the foreign relations 
of the country were concerned. Ancient and modern contro- 
versies with England existed, which seemed to defy adjust- 
ment. The great question of the northeastern boundary had 
been the subject of negotiation almost ever since the peace of 
1783. Every effort to settle it had but increased the difficulties 
with which it was beset, by exhausting the expedients of di- 
plomacy. The Oregon question was rapidly assuming a formi- 
dable aspect, as emigrants began to move into the country in 
dispute. Not less serious was the state of affairs on the south- 
western frontier, where, although a collision with Mexico might 
not in itself be an event to be viewed with great anxiety, it 
was a matter of course, as things then stood, that it would 
have brought a war with Great Britain in its train. 

To the uneasiness necessarily growing out of these boundary 
questions, no little bitterness was added by more recent occur- 
rences. The interruption of our vessels on the coast of Africa 
was a frequently-recurring source of irritation. Great cause 
of complaint was sometimes given by boarding officers, acting 
on frivolous pretenses or in a vexatious manner. At other 
times the public feeling in the United States was excited by 
the exaggerations and misstatements of unworthy American 
citizens, abusing the flag of the country to cover a detestable 
traffic which is made a capital felony by its laws. The affair 
of the "Caroline," followed by the arrest of M'Leod, created a 
degree of discontent on both sides, which discussion had done 
nothing to remove, but much to exasperate. A crisis had arisen, 
which the minister of the United States in London (Mr. Steven- 
son) deemed so serious, as to make it his duty to communicate 



IV INTRODUCTION. 

with the commander of the American squadron in the Medi- 
terranean, on the assumption of the immediate danger of war.* 

Such was the state of things when General Harrison acced- 
ed to the Presidency, after an election more strenuously con- 
tested than any former political struggle, and by a larger pop- 
ular vote than had ever before been given in the United States. 
As soon as the result of the election was known, he addressed 
a letter to Mr. Webster, offering him any place he might choose 
in his cabinet, and asking his advice as to the other members 
of which it should be composed. The wants and wishes of 
the country in reference to currency and finance having brought 
about the revolution which placed General Harrison in the chair, 
he was rather desirous that the Department of the Treasury 
should be assumed by Mr. Webster, who had studied those 
subjects profoundly, and whose opinions were in full concur- 
rence with his own. Averse to the daily drudgery of the 
Treasury, Mr. Webster gave his preference to the Department 
of State, without concealing from himself that it might be the 
post of greater care and responsibility. In this anticipation he 
was not disappointed. Although the whole of the danger did 
not at once appear, it was evident from the outset that the mo- 
ment was extremely critical. f Still, however, the circumstan- 
ces under which General Harrison was elected were such as 
to give to his administration a moral power and a freedom of 
action, as to pre-existing controversies, favorable to their set- 
tlement on honorable terms. 

But the providential dispensation which called the new Pres- 
ident from his high position when just entering upon the dis- 
charge of its duties, changed the state of affairs in this respect. 
The great national party which had called him to the helm 
was struck with astonishment. No rallying point presented 
itself. A position of things existed, not overlooked, indeed, by 
the sagacious men who framed the Constitution, but which, from 
its very nature, can never enter practically into the calculations 
of the enthusiastic multitudes by which, in times of difficulty 
and excitement, a favorite candidate is borne to the chair. How 
much of the control which it would otherwise have possessed 

* Seuate Papers, 27th Congress, 1st session, No. 33. 

t Mr. Webster's speech at Faneuil Hall, 30th September, 1842. 



INTRODUCTION. 



over public opinion could be retained by an administration thus 
unexpectedly deprived of its head, was a question which time 
alone could settle. Happily, as far as our foreign relations 
were concerned, a character had been assumed by the admin- 
istration, from the very formation of General Harrison's cabinet, 
which was steadily maintained, till it had effected the adjust- 
ment of the most difficult points in controversy, by the Treaty 
of Washington. President Harrison, as is well known, lived 
but one month after his inauguration. The greater part of the 
papers contained in the present volume were written during 
the first two years of Mr. Tyler's administration. With him, 
of course, rested the general authority of regulating and di- 
recting the negotiations with foreign powers, in which the gov- 
ernment might be engaged. The active management of these 
negotiations was in the hands of the Secretary of State, and it 
is believed that no difference of views in regard to the import- 
ant matters treated in these papers existed between him and 
Mr. Tyler. For the result of the principal negotiation, Mr. 
Tyler manifested great anxiety ; and Mr. Webster has not 
failed to bear witness, in public and private, to the intelligent 
and earnest attention which was bestowed by him on the pro- 
ceedings, through all their stages, and to express his sense of 
the confidence reposed in him by the head of the administra- 
tion, from the beginning to the end of the transactions. 

If the position of things was difficult here, it was not less so 
on the other side of the Atlantic ; indeed, many of the causes 
of embarrassment were common to the two countries. There, 
as here, the correspondence, whether conducted at Washing- 
ton or London, had of late years done nothing to advance the 
great questions at issue toward an amicable settlement. It 
had degenerated into an exercise of diplomatic logic, with the 
effect, in England as well as in America, of strengthening each 
party in the belief of his own rights, and of working up the pub- 
lic mind to a reluctant feeling that the time was at hand when 
those rights must be maintained by force. That the British 
and American governments, during a considerable part ot the 
administrations of General Jackson and Mr. Van Buren, should, 
with the fate of the reference to the King of the Netherlands 
before their eyes, have exerted themselves with melancholy in- 
genuity in arranging the impossible details of another conven- 



VI INTRODUCTION. 

tion of exploration and arbitration, shows of itself that neither 
party had any real hope of actually settling the controversy, 
but that both were willing to unite in a decent pretext for pro- 
crastination. The report of Mr. Featherstonhaugh, errone- 
ously believed, in England, to rest upon the results of actual ex- 
ploration, had been sanctioned by the ministry, and seemed to 
extinguish the last hope that England would agree to any terms 
of settlement which the United States would deem reasonable. 
The danger of collision on the frontier became daily more im- 
minent, and troops to the amount of seventeen regiments had 
been poured into the British provinces. The arrest of M'Leod, 
as we have already observed, had brought matters to a point 
at which the public sensibility of England would not have al- 
lowed a minister to blink the question. Lord Palmerston is 
known to have written to Mr. Fox, that the arrest of M'Leod, 
under the authority of the State of New York, was universally 
regarded in England as a direct affront to the British govern- 
ment, and that such was the excitement caused by it that, had 
M'Leod been condemned and executed, it would not have been 
in the power either of ministers or opposition, or the leading 
men of both parties, to prevent immediate war. At the same 
time, Lord Palmerston was urging France into a co-operation 
with the four other leading powers of Europe in the adoption 
of a policy, by the negotiation of the quintuple treaty, which 
would have left the United States in a position of dangerous 
insulation on the subject of the great maritime question of the 
day. 

At this juncture a change of administration occurred in En- 
gland, subsequent but by a few months only to that which took 
place in the government of the United States. Lord Mel- 
bourne's government gave way to that of Sir Robert Peel in 
the summer of 1841 ; it remained to be seen with what influ- 
ence on the relations of the two countries. Some circumstan- 
ces occurred to put at risk the beneficial tendency toward an 
accommodation, which might naturally be hoped for from a 
change of administration nearly simultaneous on both sides of 
the water. A note of a very uncompromising character, on 
the subject of the search of American vessels on the coast of 
Africa, had been addressed to Mr. Stevenson by Lord Palmer- 
ston on the 27th of August, 1841, a day only before the close 



INTRODUCTION. Vl'l 

of Lord Melbourne's ministry, to which Mr. Stevenson replied 
in the same strain. The answer of Lord Aberdeen, who had 
succeeded Lord Palmerston as Secretary of State for Foreign 
Affairs, bears date 10th of October, 1841, and an elaborate re- 
joinder was returned by Mr. Stevenson on the very day of 
his departure from London. Lord Aberdeen's reply to this 
note, addressed to Mr. Everett, was dated on the 20th of De- 
cember, the day on which the quintuple treaty was signed at 
London by the representatives of the five powers, and it con- 
tained an announcement of that fact. 

Happily, however, affairs were already taking a turn auspi- 
cious of better results. From his first entrance on office as 
Secretary of State, Mr. Webster, long familiar with the per- 
plexed history of the negotiation relative to the boundary, had 
perceived the necessity of taking a " new departure." The 
negotiation had broken down under its own weight. It was 
like one of those lawsuits which, to the opprobrium of tribu- 
nals, descend from age to age : a disease of the body politic 
not merely chronic, but hereditary. Early in the summer of 
1841, Mr. Webster had intimated to Mr. Fox, the British min- 
ister at Washington, that the American government was pre- 
pared to consider, and, if practicable, adopt, a conventional line 
as the only mode of cutting the Gordian knot of the contro- 
versy. This overture was, of course, conveyed to London. 
Though not leading to any result on the part of the ministry 
just going out of office, it was embraced by their successors in 
the same wise and conciliatory spirit in which it had been 
made. On the 26th of December, 1841, a note was addressed 
by Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett, inviting him to an interview 
for the following day, on which occasion he communicated the 
purpose of the government to send a special mission to the 
United States, Lord Ashburton being the person selected as 
minister, and furnished with full powers to settle ever} ques- 
tion in controversy. 

This step on the part of the British government was as bold 
as it was wise. It met the difficulty in the face. It justly as- 
sumed the existence of a corresponding spirit of conciliation 
on the part of the United States, and of a desire to bring mat- 
ters to a practical result. It was bold, because it was the last 
expedient for an amicable adjustment, and because if it should 



Vlll INTRODUCTION. 

fail, its failure must necessarily lead to very serious and imme- 
diate consequences. 

In his choice of a minister, Lord Aberdeen was not less for- 
tunate than he had been wise in proposing the measure. It 
was a decided advantage that a diplomatist by profession was 
not selected. Lord Ashburton was above the reach of the mo- 
tives which influence politicians of an ordinary stamp, and un- 
encumbered by the habits of routine which belong to men reg- 
ularly trained in a career. He possessed a weight of charac- 
ter at home which made him independent of the vulgar resorts 
of popularity. He was animated by a kindly feeling, and bound 
by kindly associations with this country. There was certainly 
no public man in England who united in an equal degree the 
confidence of his own government and country with those 
claims to the good-will of the opposite party, which were scarce- 
ly less essential to success. It may not be improper to add, 
that Mr. Webster had passed some months in England in 1839, 
had been received with great distinction and kindness by prom- 
inent men of all parties, and that Lord Ashburton, among oth- 
ers, had made his acquaintance. He knew, therefore, that his 
immediate intercourse with the American government would 
not be through an entire stranger, and was no doubt in some 
measure decided to accept the mission, by his reliance on the 
upright and honorable character of the American secretary. 

With the appointment of Lord Ashburton, the discussion of 
the main questions in controversy between the two countries, 
as far as it had been carried on in London, was transferred to 
Washington. But as an earnest of the conciliatory spirit which 
bore sway in the British councils, Lord Aberdeen had announc- 
ed to Mr. Everett, in the interval which elapsed between Lord 
Ashburton's appointment and his arrival at his place of destina- 
tion, that the queen's government admitted the wrong done by 
the detention of the " Tigris" and " Seamew" in the African wa- 
ters, and was prepared to indemnify their owners for the losses 
sustained. 

Notwithstanding the favorable circumstances under which 
the mission of Lord Ashburton was instituted, the great diffi- 
culties to be overcome were not long in being felt. The points 
in dispute in reference to the boundary had for years been the 
subject of discussion, more or less, throughout the country, but 



INTRODUCTION. IX 

especially in Massachusetts and Maine (the states having an 
immediate territorial interest in its decision), and, above all, in 
the last-named state. Parties, differing on all other great ques- 
tions, emulated each other in the zeal with which they asserted 
the American side of this dispute. So strong and unanimous 
was the feeling, that when the award of the King of the Neth- 
erlands arrived, the firm purpose of General Jackson to ac- 
cept it was subdued. The writer of these pages was informed 
by the late Mr. Forsyth, while Secretary of State, that when 
the award reached this country, General Jackson regarded it 
as definitive, and was disposed, without consulting the Senate, 
to issue his proclamation announcing it as such ; and that he 
was driven from this purpose by the representations of his 
friends in Maine, that such a course would cost them the state ; 
and he was accustomed to add, in reference to the inconven- 
iences caused by the rejection of the award, and the still more 
serious evils to be anticipated, that " it was somewhat singu- 
lar, that the only occasion of importance in his life in which he 
had allowed himself to be overruled by his friends, was one of 
all others in which he ought to have adhered to his own opin- 
ions." 

The following pages show that the first step taken by Mr. 
Webster, after receiving the directions of the President in ref- 
erence to the negotiation, was to invite the co-operation of Mas- 
sachusetts and Maine, the territory in dispute being the prop- 
erty of the two states, and under the jurisdiction of the latter. 
The extent of the treaty-making power of the United States, 
in a matter of such delicacy as the cession of territory claimed 
by a state to be within its limits, belongs to the more difficult 
class of constitutional doctrines. We have seen both the theo- 
ry and practice of General Jackson on this point. The admin- 
istration of Mr. Tyler took for granted that the full consent of 
Massachusetts and Maine was necessary to any adjustment of 
this great dispute on the principle of mutual cession and equiv- 
alents, or any other principle than that of the ascertainment of 
the true original line of boundary by agreement, mutual com- 
mission, or arbitration. Communications were accordingly ad- 
dressed to the governors of the two states. Massachusetts 
had anticipated the necessity of the measure, and made pro- 
vision for the appointment of commissioners. The Legislature 



X INTRODUCTION. 

of Maine was promptly convened for the same purpose by the 
late Governor Fairfield. Four parties were thus in presence 
at Washington for the management of the negotiation : the 
United States and Great Britain, Massachusetts and Maine. 
Recollecting that the question to be settled was one which had 
defied all the arts of diplomacy for half a century, it seemed to 
a distant, and especially a European observer, as if the last ex- 
periment, exceeding every former step in its necessary com- 
plication, was destined to a failure proportionably signal and 
ignominious. The writer of these remarks was in a condition 
to know that the course pursued by the American secretary, in 
making the result of the negotiation relative to the boundary 
contingent upon the approval of the state commissioners, was 
regarded in Europe as decidedly ominous of its failure. 

It undoubtedly required a high degree of political courage 
thus to put the absolute control of the subject, to a certain ex- 
tent, out of the hands of the national government ; but it was 
a courage fully warranted by the event. It is now evident 
that this mode of procedure was the only one which could have 
been adopted with any hope of success. Though complicated 
in appearance, it was in reality the simplest mode in which the 
co-operation of the states could have been secured. The com- 
missions were, upon the whole, happily constituted ; they were 
framed in each state without reference to party views. By 
their presence in Washington, it was in the power of the Sec- 
retary of State to avail himself, at every difficult conjuncture, 
of their counsel. Limited in number, they yet represented the 
public opinion of the two states, as fully as it could have been 
done by the entire body of their Legislatures ; while it is quite 
evident that any attempt to refer to large deliberative bodies at 
home the discussion of the separate points which arose in the 
negotiation, would have been physically impossible and polit- 
ically absurd. In looking back, after the lapse of a few years, 
at the correspondence between the commissioners and the Sec- 
retary of State, as it appears in the present volume, it must be 
admitted that there are occasionally, on the part of the former, 
a tone and spirit which we might wish to qualify, and which 
were not calculated at the time to advance the negotiations. It 
is always easy to make trouble ; true statesmanship seeks, with- 
out compromise of principle, to save trouble, and by honorable 



INTRODUCTION. XI 

means to attain great ends. Bat it must, on the whole, be al- 
lowed that the concurrence of the states was yielded by tbeir 
representatives as readily as could be expected under the cir- 
cumstances of the case, and great credit is due to several of 
the gentlemen on the commissions for this result. They consist- 
ed, on the part of Maine, of Messrs. Edward Kavanagh, Ed- 
ward Kent, William P. Preble, and John Otis ; and on the 
part of Massachusetts, of Messrs. Abbott Lawrence, John 
Mills, and Charles Allen. 

While we name with honor the gentlemen forming the com- 
missions, a tribute of respect is also due to the patriotism of 
the states immediately concerned, and especially of Maine. 
To devolve on any individuals, however high in public regard, 
a power of transferring, without ratification or appeal, a por- 
tion of the territory of the state for such considerations as those 
individuals might judge to be adequate, was a measure to be 
expected only in a case of clear necessity and high confidence. 
Mr. Webster is known to have regarded this with the utmost 
concern and anxiety as the turning-point of the whole attempt. 
His letter to Governor Fairfield states the case with equal 
strength and fairness, and puts in striking contrast the course 
there recommended, with that of proceeding to agree to anoth- 
er arbitration, as had been offered by the preceding adminis- 
tration, and assented to by England. The fate of the negotia- 
tion might be considered as involved in the success of this ap- 
peal to the chief magistrate of Maine, and through him to his 
constituents. It is said that when Mr. Webster heard that the 
Legislature of Maine had adopted the resolutions for the com- 
mission, he went to President Tyler and said, with evident sat- 
isfaction and some animation, " The crisis is past." 

A considerable portion, though not the whole, of the official 
correspondence between the Secretary of State and the other 
parties to the negotiation is contained in the following pages. 
The documents published of course exhibit full proof of the 
ability with which the argument was conducted. They prob- 
ably furnish but an inadequate specimen of the judgment, tact, 
and moral power required to conduct such a negotiation to a 
successful result. National, state, and individual susceptibili- 
ties were to be respected and soothed ; adverse interests, real 
or imaginary, to be consulted ; the ordeal of the Senate to be 



XU INTRODUCTION. 

passed through after every other difficulty had been over- 
come, and all this in an atmosphere as little favorable to such 
an operation as can be imagined. What neither Mr. Monroe, 
in the " era of good feelings," nor the ability and experience 
of Messrs. Adams, Clay, and Gallatin, nor General Jackson's 
overwhelming popularity had been able to bring about, was 
effected under the administration of Mr. Tyler, though that ad- 
ministration seemed already crumbling to pieces for want of 
harmony between some of the members and the head, and be- 
tween that head and the party which had brought him into 
power. No higher tribute can be paid to the ability and tem- 
per which were brought to the work. 

It was, however, in truth, an adjustment equally honorable 
and advantageous to all parties. There is not an individual 
of common sense or common conscience in Maine or Massa- 
chusetts, in the United States or Great Britain, who would 
now wish it disturbed. It took from Maine a tract of land 
northwest of the St. John's, which the writer certainly believes 
belonged to her under the treaty of 1783. But it is not enough 
that we think ourselves right : the other party thinks the same ; 
and when there is no common tribunal which both acknowl- 
edge, there must be compromise. The tract of land in ques- 
tion, for any purpose of cultivation or settlement, was without 
value ; and had it been otherwise, it would not have been worth 
the cost of a naval armament or one military expedition, to 
say nothing of the abomination of shedding blood on such an 
issue. But the disputed title to this worthless tract of morass, 
heath, and rock, covered with snow or fog throughout the great- 
er part of the year, was not ceded gratuitously. We obtained 
the navigation of the St. John's, the natural outlet of the whole 
country, without which the territory watered by it would have 
been of comparatively little value ; we obtained a good nat- 
ural boundary as far as the course of the river was followed ; 
and we established the line which we claimed at the head of 
the Connecticut, on Lake Champlain, and on the upper lakes : 
territorial objects of considerable interest. Great Britain had 
equal reason to be satisfied with the result. For her the terri- 
tory northwest of the St. John's, worthless to us, had a geo- 
graphical and political value ; it gave her a convenient connec- 
tion between her two provinces, which was all she desired. 



INTRODUCTION. xili 

Both sides gained the only object which really was of import- 
ance to either, a settlement by creditable means of a weari- 
some national controversy ; an honorable escape from the 
scourge and curse of war. 

Before leaving this part of the subject, we may with proprie- 
ty observe, that both governments appear to have been fortu- 
nate in the constitution of the joint commission to survey, run, 
and mark the long line of boundary. Mr. Albert Smith, of 
Maine, was appointed commissioner on the part of the United 
States, with Major James D. Graham, of the United States To- 
pographical Engineers, as head of his scientific corps, and Mr. 
Edward Webster* as his secretary. On the part of Great 
Britain, Lieutenant Colonel J. B. B. Estcourt, of her majesty's 
service, was appointed commissioner, with Captain W. H. Rob- 
inson, Royal Engineers, as principal astronomer, and J. Scott, 
Esq., as secretary. Other professional gentlemen were also 
employed on both sides. Great harmony characterized all the 
proceedings and results of the commission. The lines were 
accurately run, and that part of them not designated by rivers 
marked all the way by substantial cast-iron monuments, with 
suitable inscriptions, at every mile, and at most of the princi- 
pal angles ; and wherever the lines extended through forests, 
the trees were cut down and cleared to the width of thirtv 
feet. All the islands in the St. John's were also designated 
with iron monuments, with inscriptions thereon, indicating the 
government to which they belonged ; and upon that and all 
other streams forming portions of the boundary, monuments 
were erected at the junction of every branch with the main 
river. 

But it is time to advert to the other great and difficult ques- 
tions included in this adjustment. The extradition of fugitives 
from justice is regarded by Grotius and other respectable au- 
thorities as the duty of states, by the law of nations. Other 

* In the interval between the writing and printing of this introduction, intelli- 
gence was received from the army near Mexico of the decease of this promising 
and lamented young gentleman (at the lime of his decease a major in the Mas- 
sachusetts regiment), the younger son of Mr. Webster. In the same short inter- 
val, two other persons mentioned, viz., President Adams and Mr. Wheaton, have 
been also called away ; to say nothing of the tremendous revolution, by which 
the monarchy of France has been overturned and the king and his minister (also 
alluded to in the following pages) driven from the country. 



XIV INTRODUCTION. 

authorities reject this doctrine ;* and if it be the law of nations, 
it requires for its execution so much administrative machinery 
as to be of no practical value without treaty stipulations. The 
treaty of 1794 with Great Britain (Jay's treaty) made provision 
for a mutual extradition of fugitives, in cases of murder and 
forgery ; and the great case of Jonathan Robbins, immortalized 
by the argument of Chief-justice Marshall in defense of his sur- 
render, gave a political notoriety to that feature of the treaty 
not favorable to its renewal in subsequent negotiations. The 
treaty stipulation expired by its own limitation in 1806. Be- 
sides the convenience of such an understanding on the part of 
the two great commercial countries, between which language, 
appearance, and manners render mutual escape so easy, the 
condition of the frontier of the United States and Canada was 
such as to make this provision all but necessary for the preser- 
vation of the peace of the two countries. An extensive secret 
organization existed in the border states, the object of which 
was, under the delusive name of " sympathy," to foment and 
aid rebellion in the British provinces. Although an agreement 
for mutual extradition of necessity left untouched a great deal 
of political agitation unfriendly to border peace, murder and 
arson were, of course, within its provisions. It appears from 
the testimony of the parties best informed on the subject, that 
the happiest consequences flowed from this article of the Treaty 
of Washington. We heard no more of border forays, " Hunt- 
ers' lodges," " associations for the liberty of Canada," or vio- 
lences offered or retaliated across the line. The mild but cer- 
tain influence of law imposed a restraint, which even costly 
and formidable military means had not been found entirely ad- 
equate to produce. 

Some odium was attempted to be raised against this article 
of the treaty, from the circumstance that a female who had fled 
from Scotland, charged with the murder of her husband, was 
arrested, sent home for trial, and found by the jury " not 
guilty." There was some inaccuracy in this statement of the 
facts. The verdict of the jury, according to the forms of the 
Scottish law, was " not proven," which, though it operates as 
an acquittal, leaves an unremoved suspicion of guilt. But it 

* The authorities are given in Story's Commentaries, vol. iii., p. 675, 676 ; Con- 
flict of Laws, p. 520, 522 ; and in Kent's Commentaries, vol. i., p. 36, 37. 



INTRODUCTION. XV 

the case had been otherwise, and the acquittal plenary, what 
argument does it furnish against the extradition clause of the 
treaty ? No one can doubt that there was a prima facie case 
for arrest and trial. Such was the judgment of the magistrates 
both of Scotland and the United States. Such was the judg- 
ment of the conscience of the party accused when she fled her 
country. The United States have no interest in screening from 
trial parties legally charged with high crimes in England. En- 
gland has as little interest in affording an asylum to fugitives 
legally charged with felonies in America. If the female in 
question was rightfully discharged, it proves not that persons 
suspected of murder ought to escape untried from justice (noth- 
ing can prove such an absurdity), but that the tribunals of the 
two countries may be safely trusted to administer criminal jus- 
tice toward their respective subjects and citizens. 

Before leaving this topic, it may be observed that the doc- 
trine and practice of the United States, in reference to the ex- 
ecution of treaty stipulations, are decidedly in advance of those 
of England. In future compacts with that government, pro- 
vision ought to be made to place the parties on an equal foot- 
ing in this respect. By the Constitution of the United States, 
a treaty is a part of the law of the land, and as such all con- 
cerned are bound to obey it, and within their competence to 
execute it. If it contain provisions which can not be carried 
into effect without legislative provision — as, for instance, an 
appropriation — Congress, though not compellable to pass the 
law, is bound by a high moral and political obligation to do 
so ; and, in point of fact, has rarely hesitated, and never omit- 
ted to do its duty in this respect. In reference to extradition, 
it has been held to be within the competence of the executive, 
and no legislation has been deemed necessary. Whatever may 
be the theory of the English government in this respect, the 
practice is different.* The treaty binds nobody till its pro- 
visions are enacted by law. It may even happen — it did hap- 
pen in reference to the extradition clause of the Treaty of 

* Blackstone states the doctrine of the British Constitution to be the same as 
ours. " Whatever contracts the king engages in, no other power in the kingdom 
can legally delay, resist, or annul" (vol. i., p. 257). Such, however, is not the 
practice. The courts of law in England will not allow a treaty to be pleaded 
against an act of Parliament. 



XVi INTRODUCTION. 

Washington — that conditions may be introduced into the law 
which do not exist in the treaty. The American courts, in such 
a case, would decide so much of the law as conflicted with the 
treaty to be unconstitutional. The English courts, on the con- 
trary, would regard as a dead letter so much of the treaty as 
was not re-enacted in the law. Several claims on the British 
government have arisen within the last thirty years, on behalf 
of American citizens, for export and import duties levied, as 
has been alleged, on American property, in violation of the 
commercial convention between the two countries. The claim- 
ants have found it impossible to obtain a legal adjudication of 
their claims (to which they have avowed their willingness to 
submit them, although before the tribunals of a foreign govern- 
ment), from the refusal of the courts to allow a treaty to be 
pleaded against an act of Parliament. A very considerable 
portion of the correspondence of the United States' minister in 
London with the British government, for the last twenty-five 
years, has grown out of claims of this description. 

The stipulations for extradition in the Treaty of Washing- 
ton appear to have served as a model for those since entered 
into between the most considerable European powers. A con- 
vention for the same purpose was concluded between England 
and France on the 13th of February, 1843, and other similar 
compacts have, it is believed, still more recently been negotia- 
ted. Between the United States and Great Britain, the opera- 
tion of this part of the treaty has, in all ordinary cases, been 
entirely satisfactory. Persons charged with the crimes to 
which its provisions extend have been mutually surrendered ; 
and the cause of public justice, and in many cases important 
private interests, have been materially served on both sides of 
the water. 

Not inferior in importance and delicacy to the other sub- 
jects provided for by the treaty, was that which concerned 
the measures for the suppression of "the slave trade" on the 
coast of Africa. The law of nations, as understood and laid 
down by the most respectable authorities and tribunals, Eu- 
ropean and American, recognizes the right of search of neutral 
vessels in time of war, by the public ships of the belligerents. 
It recognizes no right of search hi time of peace. It makes no 
distinction between a right of visitation and a right of search. 



INTRODUCTION. XV11 

To compel a trading vessel, against the will of her command- 
er, to come to and be boarded, for any purpose whatsoever, 
is an exercise of the right of search which the law of nations 
concedes to belligerents for certain purposes. To do this in 
time of peace, under whatever name it may be excused or just- 
ified, is to perform an act of mere power, for which the law of 
nations affords no warrant. The moral quality of the action, 
and the estimate formed of it, will of course depend upon cir- 
cumstances, motives, and manner. If an armed ship board a 
vessel under reasonable suspicion that she is a pirate, and when 
there is no other convenient mode of ascertaining that point, 
there would be no cause of blame, although the suspicion turned 
out to be groundless. 

The British government, for the praiseworthy purpose of 
putting a stop to the detestable traffic in slaves, has at different 
times entered into conventions with several of the states of Eu- 
rope, authorizing a mutual right of search of the trading ves- 
sels of each contracting party by the armed cruisers of the oth- 
er party. These treaties give no right to search the vessels of 
nations not parties to them. But if an armed ship of either 
party should search a vessel of a third power under a reason- 
able suspicion that she belonged to the other contracting party, 
and was pursuing the slave trade in contravention of the treaty, 
this act of power, performed by mistake, and with requisite 
moderation and circumspection in the manner, would not be 
ground of offense to the government of the third nation. It 
would, however, authorize a reasonable expectation of indem- 
nification on behalf of the private individuals who might suffer 
by the detention, as in other cases of injury inflicted on innocent 
parties by public functionaries acting with good intentions at 
their peril. 

The government of the United States, both in its executive 
and legislative branches, has at almost all times manifested an 
extreme repugnance to enter into conventions for a mutual 
right of search. It has not yielded to any other power in its 
aversion to the slave trade, which it was the first government 
to denounce as piracy. The reluctance in question grew prin- 
cipally out of the injuries inflicted upon the American com- 
merce, and still more out of the personal outrages in the im- 
pressment of American seamen, which took place during the 

B 



XV111 INTRODUCTION. 

wars of Napoleon, and incidentally to the belligerent right 
of search and the enforcement of the Orders in Council and 
the Berlin and Milan decrees. Besides a wholesale confisca- 
tion of American property, hundreds of American seamen were 
impressed into the ships of war of Great Britain. So deeply 
had the public sensibility been wounded on both points, that 
any extension of the right of search by the consent of the Unit- 
ed States was for a long time nearly hopeless. 

But this feeling, strong and general as it was, yielded at last 
to the detestation of the slave trade. Toward the close of the 
second administration of Mr. Monroe the executive had been 
induced, acting under the sanction of resolutions of the two 
houses of Congress, to agree to a convention with Great Brit- 
ain for a mutual right of search of vessels suspected of being 
engaged in the traffic. This convention was negotiated in 
London by Mr. Rush on the part of the United States, Mr. 
Canning being Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 

In defining the limits within which this right should be exer- 
cised, the coasts of America were included. The Senate was 
of opinion that such a provision might be regarded as an ad- 
mission that the slave trade was carried on between the coasts 
of Africa and the United States, contrary to the known fact, 
and to the reproach either of the will or power of the United 
States to enforce their laws, by which it was declared to be 
piracy. It also placed the whole coast of the Union under the 
surveillance of the cruisers of a foreign power. The Senate, 
accordingly, ratified the treaty, with an amendment exempting 
the coasts of the United States from the operation of the arti- 
cle. They also introduced other amendments of less import- 
ance. 

On the return of the treaty to London thus amended, Mr. 
Canning gave way to a feeling of dissatisfaction at the course 
pursued by the Senate, not so much on account of any decided 
objection to the amendment in itself considered, as to the claim 
of the Senate to introduce any change into a treaty negotiated 
according to instructions. Under the influence of this feeling, 
Mr. Canning refused to ratify the treaty as amended, and no 
further attempt was at that time made to renew the negotiation. 

It will probably be admitted on all hands, at the present day, 
that Mr. Canning's scruple was without foundation. The treaty 



INTRODUCTION. XIX 

had been negotiated by this accomplished statesman, under the 
full knowledge that the Constitution of the United States re- 
serves this power to the Senate. That it should be exercised 
was, therefore, no more matter of complaint than that the treaty- 
should be referred at all to the ratification of the Senate. The 
course pursued by Mr. Canning was greatly to be regretted, 
as it postponed the amicable adjustment of this matter for 
eighteen years, not without risk of serious misunderstanding in 
the interval. 

Attempts were made on the part of England, during the 
ministry of Lord Melbourne, to renew the negotiation with the 
United States, but without success. Conventions between 
France and England, for a mutual right of search within cer- 
tain limits, were concluded in 1831 and 1833, under the min- 
istry of the Due de Broglie, without awakening to the public 
sensibility in the former country. As these treaties multiplied, 
the activity of the English cruisers increased. After the treaty 
with Portugal in 1838, the vessels of that country, which, with 
those of Spain, were most largely engaged in the traffic, began 
to assume the flag of the United States as a protection ; and in 
many cases also, although the property of vessels and cargo 
had, by collusive transfers on the African coast, become Span- 
ish or Portuguese, the vessels had been built and fitted out in 
the United States, and too often, it may be feared, with Amer- 
ican capital. Vessels of this description were provided with 
two sets of papers, to be used as occasion might require. 

Had nothing further been done by British cruisers than to 
board and search these vessels, whether before or after a trans- 
fer of this kind, no complaint would probably have been made 
by the government of the United States. But as many Amer- 
ican vessels were engaged in lawful commerce to the coast of 
Africa, it frequently happened that they were boarded by Brit- 
ish cruisers, not always under the command of discreet offi- 
cers. Some voyages were broken up, officers and men occa- 
sionally ill-treated, and vessels sent to the United States or Si- 
erra Leone for adjudication. 

In 1840 an agreement was made between the officers m 
command of the British and American squadrons respectively 
sanctioning a reciprocal right of search on the coasts of Af- 
rica. It will be found at pages 73 and 74 of the present vol- 



XX INTRODUCTION. 



urne. It was a well-meant but unauthorized step, and was 
promptly disavowed by the administration of Mr. Van Buren. 
Its operation, while it lasted, was but to increase the existing 
difficulty. Reports of the interruptions experienced by our 
commerce in the African waters began greatly to multiply. 
There was a strong interest on the part of those surrepti- 
tiously engaged in the traffic to give them currency. A deep 
feeling began to be manifested in the country ; and the corre- 
spondence between the American minister in London and Lord 
Palmerston, in the last days of the Melbourne ministry, was 
such as to show the somewhat critical point which the contro- 
versy had reached. 

This controversy was transmitted, as we have seen, to the 
new administrations on both sides of the water, but soon as- 
sumed a somewhat modified character. The quintuple treaty, 
as it was called, was concluded at London on the 20th of De- 
cember, 1841, by England, France, Austria, Prussia, and Rus- 
sia ; and information of that fact, as we have seen above, was 
given by Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett the same day. A 
strong desire was intimated that the United States would join 
this association of the great powers, although no formal invita- 
tion for that purpose was addressed to them. But the recent 
occurrences on the coast of Africa, and the tone of the corre- 
spondence above alluded to, had increased the standing repug- 
nance of the United States to the recognition of the right of 
search in time of peace. 

In the mean time, the same complaints — sometimes just, 
sometimes exaggerated, sometimes groundless — had reached 
France from the coast of Africa, and a strong feeling against 
the right of search was produced in that country. The inci- 
dents connected with the adjustment of the Syrian question in 
1840 had greatly irritated the French ministry and people, and 
the present was deemed a favorable moment for retaliation. On 
the assembling of the Chambers, an amendment was moved by 
M. Lefebvre to the address in reply to the king's speech in the 
following terms : " We have also the confidence, that in grant- 
ing its concurrence to the suppression of a criminal traffic, 
your government will know how to preserve from every at- 
tack the interest of our commerce and the independence of our 



INTRODUCTION. XXI 

flag." This amendment was adopted by the unanimous vote 
of the Chambers. 

This was the most formidable parliamentary check ever en- 
countered, before or since, by M. Guizot's administration.* It 
excited profound sensation throughout Europe. It compelled 
the French ministry to make the painful sacrifice of a conven- 
tion negotiated agreeably to instructions, and not differing in 
principle from those of 1831 and 1833, which were consequent- 
ly liable to be involved in its fate. The ratification of the quin- 
tuple treaty was felt to be out of the question. Although it 
soon appeared that the king was determined to sustain M. Gui- 
zot, it was by no means apparent in what manner his adminis- 
tration was to be rescued from the present embarrassment. 

The public feeling in France was considerably heightened 
by various documents which appeared at this juncture, in con- 
nection with the controversy between the United States and 
Great Britain. The President's Message and its accompany- 
ing papers reached Europe about the period of the opening of 
the session. A very few days after the adoption of M. Le- 
febvre's amendment, a pamphlet, written by General Cass, was 
published in Paris, and, being soon after translated into French 
and widely circulated, contributed to strengthen the current of 
public feeling. A more elaborate essay on the right of search 
was, in the course of the season, published by Mr. Wheaton, 
the minister of the United States at Berlin, in which the theory 
of a right of search in time of peace was vigorously assailed. 

The preceding sketch of the history of the question will 
show the difficulty of the position in reference to this most im- 
portant interest, at the time Lord Ashburton's mission was in- 
stituted. With what practical good sense and high statesman- 
ship the controversy was terminated is known to the country, 
and is seen in the following pages. It is unnecessary here to 
retrace the steps of the correspondence, to comment on the 
eighth article of the Treaty of Washington, or to analyze the 
parliamentary and diplomatic discussions to which in the fol- 
lowing year it gave rise. It is enough to say, that under cir- 
cumstances of some embarrassment to the Department of State, 
a course of procedure was happily devised and incorporated 

* It is scarcely necessary to 6tate that this was written before the late revolu 
tion in France. 



XXU INTRODUCTION. 

with the treaty, which, leaving untouched the metaphysics of 
the question, furnished a satisfactory practical solution of the 
difficulty. Circumstances having made a re-statement expe- 
dient of the principles maintained by the United States on this 
most important subject, a letter was addressed by Mr. Web- 
ster to Mr. Everett, on the 28th of March, 1843, to be read to 
the British minister, in which the law of nations applicable to 
the subject was expounded by the American secretary with a 
clearness and power which will render any further discussion 
of the subject, under its present aspects, entirely superfluous. 
Nor will it be thought out of place to acknowledge the fair- 
ness, good temper, and ability with which the doctrine and 
practice of the English government were sustained by the Earl 
of Aberdeen. 

The effect of the eighth article of the Treaty of Washington 
was decisive. It raised the jealousy already existing in France 
on this subject to the point of uncontrollable repugnance. The 
ratification of the quintuple treaty had long been abandoned. 
It was soon evident that the conventions of 1831 and 1833 
must be given up. In the course of the year 1844, the Due de 
Broglie, the honorable and accomplished minister by whom 
they had been negotiated, accepted a special mission to Lon- 
don, for the purpose of coming to some satisfactory arrange- 
ment by way of substitute, and a convention was soon con- 
cluded with the British government on precisely the same prin- 
ciples as those of the Treaty of Washington. 

It may be matter of regret that the public feeling of the 
United States has become so strong and fixed against a mutual 
right of search on the coast of Africa for the suppression of the 
slave trade. This detestable traffic still exists, it is to be feared, 
unimpaired in extent, and with aggravated horrors, caused by 
the expedients employed to evade the cruisers. In a mutual 
right of search there can be no disparagement. It is not easy 
to see how it can be thought degrading to the national honor, 
while the belligerent right of search, which makes the armed 
cruisers of the parties at war, and their courts of admiralty, 
sovereign arbiters of the seas, is submitted to without a mur- 
mur. The enormous evils of the traffic ought to reconcile the 
United States to the adoption of the measures best calculated 
to repress it ; among which, a mutual right of search by agree- 



INTRODUCTION. XX1U 

ment with all the great powers of Christendom, is no doubt the 
most efficacious. Above all, it may be hoped that the sug- 
gestion of Mr. Webster will be borne in mind, in any future 
discussions of this and other maritime questions, that the policy 
of the United States is not that of a feeble naval power, inter- 
ested in exaggerating the doctrine of neutral inviolability. A 
respect for every independent flag is a common interest of all 
civilized states, powerful or weak ; but the rank of the United. 
States among naval powers, and their position as the great 
maritime power on the eastern coasts of the Atlantic and the 
western coasts of the Pacific, may lead them to doubt the ex- 
pediency of pressing too far the views they have hitherto held, 
and moderate their anxiety to construe with extreme strictness 
the rights which the law of nations concedes to public vessels. 

The three subjects on which we have dwelt, viz., the north- 
eastern boundary, the extradition of fugitives, and the sup- 
pression of the slave trade, were the only ones which required 
to be provided for by treaty stipulation. Other subjects, scarce- 
ly less important, and fully as difficult, were happily disposed 
of in the correspondence of the plenipotentiaries. These were, 
the affair of the "Caroline," that of the "Creole," and the ques- 
tion of impressment. The space assigned to these introduc- 
tory remarks is too nearly exhausted for any detail of observ- 
ation on these topics ; but we shall be pardoned for one or two 
reflections. 

So urgent is the pressure on the public mind of the success- 
ive events, which demand attention each as it presents itself, 
that the formidable difficulties growing out of the destruction 
of the "Caroline" and the arrest of M'Leod are already fading 
from recollection. They formed, in reality, a crisis of a most 
serious and delicate character. A glance at the correspond- 
ence of the two governments at Washington and London suffi- 
ciently shows this to be the case. The violation of the terri- 
tory of the United States in the destruction of the "Caroline," 
however unwarrantable the conduct of the " sympathizers" 
which provoked it, became, from the moment the British gov 
ernment assumed the responsibility of the act, an incident of 
the gravest character. On the other hand, the inability of the 
government of the United States to extricate M'Leod from the 



Xxiv INTRODUCTION. 

risks of a capital trial in a state court, although the govern- 
ment of England demanded his liberation, on the ground that 
he was acting under the legal orders of his superior, presented 
a difficulty in the working of our system equally novel and im- 
portant. Other cases had arisen, in which important consti- 
tutional principles had failed to take effect in particular cases, 
for want of the requisite legislative provisions. It is believed 
that this was the first case in which a difficulty of this kind 
had presented itself in our foreign relations. A more threaten- 
ing one can scarcely be imagined. In addition to the embar- 
rassment occasioned by the refusal of the executive and judi- 
ciary of New York to yield to the representations of the Gen- 
eral Government, the violent interference of the mob presented 
new difficulties of the most deplorable character. Had M'Leod 
been condemned and executed, it is not too much to say that 
war must have ensued. His acquittal averted this impending 
danger. The conciliatory spirit can not be too warmly com- 
mended with which, on the one hand, the proper reparation 
was made by Lord Ashburton for the violation of the Ameri- 
can territory, and on the other hand, Congress, by the pas- 
sage of a law (see page 137 of the present volume), provided 
an effectual legislative remedy for any future similar case. 
They show with what simplicity and ease the greatest evils 
may be averted, and the most desirable ends achieved by 
statesmen and governments animated by a sincere desire to 
promote the welfare of those who have placed power in their 
hands, not for selfish party purposes, but for the public good. 

There is, perhaps, no part of the following pages in which 
as much force of statement and dialectic power are displayed 
as in the letter on "impressment." To incorporate a stipula- 
tion on this subject into a treaty was, regarding the antece- 
dents of the question, impracticable. But the reply of Lord 
Ashburton to Mr. Webster's announcement of the American 
principle must be considered as acquiescence on the part of 
his government. It may be doubted whether this odious and 
essentially illegal practice will ever again be systematically 
resorted to even in England. Considering the advance made 
by public sentiment on all questions connected with personal 
liberty, " a hot-press on the Thames" would hardly stand the 



INTRODUCTION. XXV 

ordeal of an investigation in Parliament. It is certain that the 
right of impressing seamen from American vessels could never 
be practically asserted in a future war, with any other effect 
than that of adding the United States to the parties in the con- 
test. No refinements in the doctrine of natural allegiance, al- 
though their theoretical soundness might equal their subtlety, 
would be of the least avail here. To force seamen from the 
deck of a peaceful neutral pursuing a lawful commerce, and 
compel them to serve for an indefinite and hopeless period on 
board a foreign man-of-war, is an act of violence and power 
to which no nation will submit that is able to resist it. In the 
case of the United States and Great Britain, that community 
of language and general appearance, which may have been 
considered as palliating the most deplorable results of the ex- 
ercise of this power, in reality constitutes the strongest reason 
for its abandonment. The unquestionable danger that, with 
the best intentions, the foreign officer may mistake an Ameri- 
can for an Englishman ; the certainty that a reckless lieuten- 
ant, unmindful of consequences, but resolute upon recruiting 
his ship on a remote foreign station, will pretend to believe 
that he is seizing the subjects of his own government, what- 
ever may be the evidence to the contrary, are reasons of them- 
selves for denying on the threshold the existence of a right 
exposed to such inevitable and intolerable abuse. 

These, and other views of the subject, are presented in Mr. 
Webster's letter to Lord Ashburton of the 8th of August, 1842, 
with a power of argument and force of illustration not often 
equaled in a state paper. That letter was spoken of, in the 
hearing of the writer of these remarks, by one whose name, if 
it could be mentioned with propriety, would give the highest 
authority to the opinion, as a composition not surpassed by 
any thing in the language. The principles laid down in it 
may be considered as incorporated into the public law of the 
United States, and will have their influence beyond our own 
territorial limits, and beyond our own time. 

Some disappointment was probably felt, when the Treaty of 
Washington was published, that a settlement of the Oregon 
question was not included among its provisions. It need not 
be said that a subject of such magnitude did not escape the 
attention of the negotiators. It was, however, speedily infer- 



XXVI INTRODUCTION. 

red by the American secretary, from the purport of his informal 
conferences with Lord Ashburton on this point, that an ar- 
rangement of this question was net then practicable, and that 
to attempt it would be to put the entire negotiation to great 
risk of failure. On the other hand, it was not less certain that, 
by closing up the other matters in controversy, the best prep- 
aration was made for bringing the Oregon dispute to an ami- 
cable issue whenever circumstances should favor that under- 
taking. Considerable firmness was no doubt required to adopt 
and act upon this policy, and to forego the attempt, at least, to 
settle a question rapidly growing into the most formidable 
magnitude. It is unnecessary to say how completely the course 
adopted has been justified by the event. 

We have in the preceding remarks confined ourselves to the 
topics connected with the Treaty of Washington. The papers 
belonging to this subject occupy the larger part of the volume ; 
it is in itself of paramount importance, and it is that which en- 
tered principally into the political discussions of the day. The 
residue of the volume contains the correspondence of Mr. Web- 
ster as Secretary of State on various subjects of great interest. 

The first part of it pertains to our controversies with Mexi- 
co, and was carried on with M. de Bocanegra as Mexican Sec- 
retary of State and Foreign Relations. The great and unex- 
pected changes, commenced and in progress in that quarter, 
since the date of this correspondence, will not impair the in- 
terest with which it will be read. It throws important light 
on the earlier stages of our controversy with that ill-advised 
and infatuated government. Among the papers in this part 
of the volume are those which relate to the Santa Fe prison- 
ers and Captain Jones's attack on Monterey. 

Under the head of "Relations with Spain" will be found a 
correspondence of great interest between the Chevalier d'Ar- 
gai'z, the representative of that government, and Mr. Webster, 
on the subject of the " Amistad." The pertinacity with which 
this matter was pursued by Spain, after its adjudication by the 
Supreme Court of the United States, furnishes an instructive 
commentary upon the sincerity of that government in its 
measures for the abolition of the slave trade. The entire 
merits of this important and extraordinary case are condensed 



INTRODUCTION. XXVU 

in Mr. Webster's letters of the 1st of September, 1841, and 21st 
of June, 1842. 

The next division of the volume, under the head of " China 
and the Sandwich Islands," embraces the instructions given to 
Mr. Cushing as commissioner to China, and the correspondence 
between Mr. Webster and Messrs. Richards and Haalilio on 
behalf of the Sandwich Islands. At any period less crowded 
with important events, the opening of diplomatic relations with 
China, and the conclusion of a treaty of commerce with that 
power, would have been deemed occurrences of unusual im- 
portance. It certainly reflects great credit on the administra- 
tion, that it acted with such promptitude and efficiency in seiz- 
ing this opportunity of multiplying avenues of commercial in- 
tercourse. Nor is less praise due to the energy and skill of 
the negotiator (Mr. Cushing) to whom this novel and import- 
ant undertaking was confided, and who was able to embark 
from China, on his return homeward, in six months after his 
arrival, having in the mean time satisfactorily concluded the 
treaty. 

The application of the representatives of the Sandwich Isl- 
ands to the government of the United States, and the counte- 
nance extended to them at Washington, exercised a most sal- 
utary and seasonable influence over the destiny of those isl- 
ands. The British government was promptly made aware of 
the course pursued by the United States, and was no doubt 
led in a considerable degree, by this circumstance, to promise 
the Hawaiian delegates, on the part of England, to respect the 
independent neutrality of those islands. In the mean time, the 
British admiral on that station had taken provisional posses- 
sion of them on behalf of his government, in intended antici- 
pation of a similar movement on the part of France. Had 
intelligence of this occurrence been received in London before 
the promise above alluded to was given by Lord Aberdeen to 
Messrs. Richards and Haalilio, it is not impossible that Great 
Britain might have felt herself warranted in retaining the pro- 
tectorate of the Hawaiian Islands as an offset for the occupa- 
tion of Tahiti by the French. As it was, the temporary ar- 
rangement of the British admiral was disavowed, and the gov- 
ernment restored to the native chief. 

A correspondence follows between Mr. Webster and the 



XXVM INTRODUCTION. 

Portuguese minister on the subject of duties on Portuguese 
wines, and the volume closes with a report of great importance 
on the Sound duties and the Zoll Verein, topics to which events 
now in progress (April, 1848) will henceforward impart a 
greatly-increased importance. 

This brief enumeration will of itself sufficiently show the 
extensive range of the subjects to which the attention of the 
American executive was called during the period to which it 
pertains. 

In drawing these introductory remarks to a close, the writer 
can not forego the reflection that, although the papers contain- 
ed in the present volume probably form but a small portion of 
the official correspondence of the Department of State for the 
period during which it was filled by Mr. Webster, they con- 
stitute, nevertheless, the most important part of the document- 
ary record of a period of official service, brief, indeed, but as 
beneficial to the country as any of which the memory is pre- 
served in her annals. The administration of General Harrison 
found the United States, in the spring of 1841, on the verge of 
a war, not with a feeble Spanish province, scarcely capable 
of a respectable resistance, but with the most powerful gov- 
ernment on earth. The conduct of our foreign relations was 
intrusted to Mr. Webster, as Secretary of State, and in two 
years for which he filled that office controversies of fifty years' 
standing were terminated, new causes of quarrel that sprung 
up like hydra's heads were settled, and Peace was preserved 
upon honorable terms. The British government, fresh from 
the conquest of China, perhaps never felt itself stronger than 
in the year 1842, and a full share of credit is due to the spirit 
of conciliation which swayed its councils. Much is due to 
the wise and amiable negotiator who was dispatched on the 
holy errand of peace ; much to the patriotism of the Senate of 
the United States, who confirmed the treaty by a larger ma- 
jority than ever before sustained a measure of this kind which 
divided public opinion ; but the first meed of praise is unques- 
tionably due to the negotiator. Let the just measure of that 
praise be estimated by reflecting what would be our condition 
at the present day if, instead of or in addition to the war with 
Mexico, we were involved in a war with Great Britain. 



CONTENTS, 



Pago 
TREATY OF WASHINGTON OF 1842. 

Northeastern Boundary 33 

Suppression of the Slave Trade 72 

CORRESPONDENCE WITH LORD ASHBURTON. 

Maritime Rights. Case of the " Creole" 83 

Impressment 95 

Inviolability of National Territory. Case of the " Caroline" 104 

THE CASE OF ALEXANDER M'LEOD 120 

RIGHT OF SEARCH 140 

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE, AND TREATY OF WASHINGTON 222 

VOTE OF THE SENATE ON THE FINAL QUESTION OF RATIFICATION 238 

MR. Webster's speech in the senate of the united states, 
april, 1846, in vindication of the treaty of washington 
of 1 842 239 

relations with mexico 301 

Respecting the American Citizens captured at Santa Fe. . . 317 
Captain Jones's Attack on Monterey 333 

RELATIONS WITH SPAIN 339 

CHINA AND THE SANDWICH ISLANDS 357 

CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES 

AND PORTUGAL, RESPECTING DUTIES AT THE CUSTOM-HOUSE . . . 374 

SOUND DUES AT ELSINORE, AND THE ZOLL VEREIN UNION 382 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE, 




Fold-out 
Placeholder 



This fold-out is being digitized, and will be inserted at a 

future date. 




Fold-out 
Placeholder 



This fold-out is being digitized, and will be inserted at a 

future date. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL 
PAPERS. 



TREATY OF WASHINGTON OF 1842. 

NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

A leading object sought to be accomplished, and which was 
accomplished, by the Treaty of Washington, was the settle- 
ment of the controversy between the United States and En- 
gland relative to the northern and northeastern boundary of 
the United States. 

The history of this controversy, from the Treaty of Peace, 
in 1783, to its final adjustment in 1842, is given in Mr. Web- 
ster's speech in the Senate, the 6th and 7th of April, 1846, 
which is contained in this publication. In the summer of 1841, 
Mr. Webster signified to Mr. Fox, the British minister at 
Washington, that, having received the President's authority for 
so doing, he was then willing to make an attempt to settle the 
boundary dispute, by agreeing on a conventional line, or line 
by compromise. In September of that year the ministry of 
Sir Robert Peel came into power ; and Lord Aberdeen, Secre- 
tary of State for Foreign Affairs, having been informed of what 
had been said by Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox, invited Mr. Everett, 
at that time minister of the United States at the court of Lon- 
don, to an interview on that subject. The following corre- 
spondence immediately took place 

Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster. — [extracts.] 

Legation of the United States, London, December 31, 1841. 

vp tF tt" tP vp <f" tP 

At a late hour on the evening of the 26th, I received a note 
from the Earl of Aberdeen, requesting an interview for the fol- 
lowing day, when I met him at the Foreign Office, agreeably 
to the appointment. After one or two general remarks upon 
the difficulty of bringing about an adjustment of the points of 
controversy between the governments, by a continuance of the 
discussions hitherto carried on, he said that her majesty's gov- 
ernment had determined to take a decisive step toward that 
end, by sending a special minister to the United States, with a 
full power to make a final settlement of all matters in dispute. 
* * * " * * This step was determined on from 

C 



34 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

a sincere and earnest desire to bring the matter so long in con- 
troversy to an amicable settlement ; and if, as he did not doubt, 
the same disposition existed at Washington, he thought this 
step afforded the most favorable, and, indeed, the only means 
of carrying it into effect. In the choice of the individual for 
the mission, Lord Aberdeen added, that he had been mainly 
influenced by a desire to select a person who would be pecul- 
iarly acceptable in the United States, as well as eminently 
qualified for the trust, and that he persuaded himself he had 
found one who, in both respects, was all that could be wished. 
He then named Lord Ashburton, who had consented to under- 
take the mission. 

Although this communication was, of course, wholly unex- 
pected to me, I felt no hesitation in expressing the great satis- 
faction with which I received it. I assured Lord Aberdeen that 
the President had nothing more at heart than an honorable ad- 
justment of the matters in discussion between the two countries ; 
that I was persuaded a more acceptable selection of a person 
for the important mission proposed could not have been made; 
and that I anticipated the happiest results from this overture. 

Lord Aberdeen rejoined, that it was more than an overture ; 
that Lord Ashburton would go with full powers to make a de- 
finitive arrangement on every point in discussion between the 
two countries. He was aware of the difficulty of some of 
them, particularly what had incorrectly been called the right 
of search, which he deemed the most difficult of all ; but he was 
willing to confide this and all other matters in controversy to 
Lord Ashburton' s discretion. He added, that they should have 
been quite willing to come to a general arrangement here, but 
they supposed I had not full powers for such a purpose. 

This measure being determined on, Lord Aberdeen said he 
presumed it would be hardly worth while for us to continue 
the correspondence here on matters in dispute between the 
governments. He, of course, was quite willing to consider and 
reply to any statement I might think proper to make on any 
subject ; but, pending the negotiations that might take place at 
Washington, he supposed no benefit could result from a simul- 
taneous discussion here. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Everett. — [extract.] 

Department of State, Washington, January 29, 1842. 

By the " Britannia," arrived at Boston, I have received your 
dispatch of the 28th of December (No. 4), and your other dis- 
patch of the 31st of the same month (No. 5), with a postscript 
of the 3d of January. 

The necessity of returning an early answer to these com- 
munications (as the "Britannia" is expected to leave Boston 
on the 1st of February) obliges me to postpone a reply to those 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 35 

parts of them which are not of considerable and immediate 
importance. 

The President expresses himself gratified with the manner 
in which the queen received you to present your letter of 
credence, and with the civility and respect which appear to 
characterize the deportment of Lord Aberdeen in his inter- 
course with you ; and you will please signify to Lord Aber- 
deen the President's sincere disposition to bring all matters in 
discussion between the two governments to a°speedy as well 
as an amicable adjustment. 

The President has read Lord Aberdeen's note to you of the 
20th of December, in reply to Mr. Stevenson's note to Lord 
Palmerston of the 21st of October, and thinks you were quite 
right in acknowledging the dispassionate tone of that paper. 
It is only by the exercise of calm reason that truth can be ar- 
rived at in questions of a complicated nature ; and between 
states, each of which understands and respects the intelligence 
and the power of the other, there ought to be no unwillingness 
to follow its guidance. At the present day, no state is so high 
as that the principles of its intercourse with other nations are 
above question, or its conduct above scrutiny. On the contrary, 
the whole civilized world, now vastly better informed on such 
subjects than in former ages, and alive and sensible to the 
principles adopted, and the purposes avowed, by the leading 
states, necessarily constitutes a tribunal, august in character 
and formidable in its decisions. And it is before this tribunal, 
and upon the rules of natural justice, moral propriety, the 
usages of modern times, and the prescriptions of public law, 
that governments, which respect themselves and respect their 
neighbors, must be prepared to discuss, with candor and with 
dignity, any topics which may have caused differences to sprint 
up between them. 

Your dispatch of the 31st of December announces the import- 
ant intelligence of an intention of dispatching a special minister 
from England to the United States, with full powers to settle 
every matter in dispute between the two governments ; and 
the President directs me to say, that he regards this proceed- 
ing as originating in an entirely amicable spirit, and that it 
will be met, on his part, with perfectly corresponding senti- 
ments. The high character of Lord Ashburton is well known 
to this government; and it is not doubted that he will enter 
on the duties assigned to him, not only with the advantages of 
much knowledge and experience in public affairs, but with a 
true desire to signalize his mission by assisting to place the 
peace of the two countries on a permanent basis. He will be re- 
ceived with the respect due to his own character, the character 
of the government which sends him, and the high importance, 
to both countries, of the subjects intrusted to his negotiation. 



36 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

The President approves your conduct in not pursuing in 
England the discussion of questions which are now to become 
the subjects of negotiation here. 

(Signed), Danl. Webster. 

Lord Ashburton arrived in Washington, April 4, 1842; and 
shortly after Mr. Webster addressed the following letter to the 
Governor of the State of Maine : 

Mr. Webster to Governor Fairfield. 

Department of State, Washington, April 11, 1842. 

Your excellency is aware that, previous to March, 1841, a 
negotiation had been going on for some time between the Sec- 
retary of State of the United States, under the direction of the 
President, and the British minister accredited to this govern- 
ment, having for its object the creation of a joint commission 
for settling the controversy respecting the northeastern bound- 
ary of the United States, with a provision for an ultimate 
reference to arbitrators, to be appointed by some one of the 
sovereigns of Europe, in case an arbitration should become 
necessary. On the leading features of a convention for this 
purpose the two governments had become agreed ; but on sev- 
eral matters of detail the parties differed, and appear to have 
been interchanging their respective views and opinions, proj- 
ects, and counter-projects, without coming to any final arrange- 
ment, down to August, 1840. Various causes, not now neces- 
sary to be explained, arrested the progress of the negotiation at 
that time, and no considerable advance has since been made in it. 

It seems to have been understood on both sides that, one 
arbitration having failed, it was the duty of the two parties to 
proceed to institute another, according to the spirit of the treaty 
of Ghent and other treaties ; and the President has felt it to be 
his duty, unless some new course should be proposed, to cause 
the negotiation to be resumed, and pressed to its conclusion. 
But I have now to inform your excellency that Lord Ashburton, 
a minister plenipotentiary and special, has arrived at the seat 
of the government of the United States, charged with full 
powers from his sovereign to negotiate and settle the different 
matters in discussion between the two governments. I have 
further to state to you, that he has officially announced to this 
department that, in regard to the boundary question, he has 
authority to treat for a conventional line, or line by agreement, 
on such terms and conditions, and with such mutual consider- 
ations and equivalents, as may be thought just and equitable, 
and that he is ready to enter upon a negotiation for such con- 
ventional line so soon as this government shall say it is author- 
ized and ready, on its part, to commence such negotiation. 
Under these circumstances, the President has felt it to be his 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 37 

duty to call the serious attention of the governments of Maine 
and Massachusetts to the subject, and to submit to those gov- 
ernments the propriety of their co-operation, to a certain ex- 
tent, and in a certain form, in an endeavor to terminate a con- 
troversy already of so long duration, and which seems very 
likely to be still considerably further protracted before the de- 
sired end of a final adjustment shall be attained, unless a shorter 
course of arriving at that end be adopted, than such as has 
heretofore been pursued, and as the two governments are still 
pursuing. 

Yet, without the concurrence of the two states whose rights 
are more immediately concerned, both having an interest in 
the soil, and one of them in the jurisdiction and government, 
the duty of this government will be to adopt no new course, 
but, in compliance with treaty stipulations, and in furtherance 
of what has already been done, to hasten the pending negotia- 
tions as fast as possible, in the course hitherto adopted. 

But the President thinks it a highly desirable object to pre- 
vent the delays necessarily incident to any settlement of the 
question by these means. Such delays are great and unavoid- 
able. It has been found that an exploration and examination 
of the several lines constitute a work of three years. The ex- 
isting commission for making such exploration, under the au- 
thority of the United States, has been occupied two summers, 
and a very considerable portion of the work remains still to be 
done. If a joint commission should be appointed, and should 
go through the same work, and the commissioners should dis- 
agree, as is very possible, and an arbitration on that account 
become indispensable, the arbitrators might find it necessary 
to make an exploration and survey themselves, or cause the 
same to be done by others, of their own appointment. If to 
these causes, operating to postpone the final decision, be added 
the time necessary to appoint arbitrators, and for their prepa- 
ration to leave Europe for the service, and the various retard- 
ing incidents always attending such operations, seven or eight 
years constitute, perhaps, the shortest period within which we 
can look for a final result. In the mean time, great expenses 
have been incurred, and further expenses can not be avoided. 
It is well known that the controversy has brought heavy 
charges upon Maine herself, to the remuneration or proper 
settlement of which she can not be expected to be indifferent. 
The exploration by the government of the United States has 
already cost a hundred thousand dollars, and the charge ol 
another summer's work is in prospect. These facts may be 
sufficient to enable us to form a probable estimate of the whole 
expense likely to be incurred before the controversy can be 
settled by arbitration ; and our experience admonishes us that 
even another arbitration might possibly fail. 



38 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

The opinion of this government upon the justice and validity 
of the American claim has been expressed at so many times, 
and in so many forms, that a repetition of that opinion is not 
necessary. But the subject is a subject in dispute. The gov- 
ernment has agreed to make it matter of reference and arbitra- 
tion ; and it must fulfill that agreement, unless another mode for 
settling the controversy should be resorted to, with the hope 
of producing a speedier decision. The President proposes, 
then, that the governments of Maine and Massachusetts should 
severally appoint a commissioner or commissioners, empower- 
ed to confer with the authorities of this government upon a 
conventional line, or line by agreement, with its terms, condi- 
tions, considerations, and equivalents ; with an understanding 
that no such line will be agreed upon without the assent of 
such commissioners. 

This mode of proceeding, or some other which shall express 
assent beforehand, seems indispensable, if any negotiation for 
a conventional line is to be attempted ; since, if happily a treaty 
should be the result of the negotiation, it can only be submitted 
to the Senate of the United States for ratification. 

It is a subject of deep and sincere regret to the President 
that the British plenipotentiary did not arrive in the country 
and make known his powers in time to have made this com- 
munication before the annual session of the Legislature of the 
two states had been brought to a close. He perceives and 
laments the inconvenience which may be experienced from re- 
assembling those legislatures. But the British mission is a 
special one ; it does not supersede the resident mission of the 
British government at Washington, and its stay in the United 
States is not expected to be long. In addition to these con- 
siderations, it is to be suggested that more than four months of 
the session of Congress have already passed, and it is highly 
desirable, if any treaty for a conventional line should be agreed 
on, that it should be concluded before the session shall term- 
inate, not only because of the necessity of the ratification of 
the Senate, but also because it is not impossible that measures 
may be thought advisable, or become important, which can 
only be accomplished by the authority of both Houses. 

These considerations, in addition to the importance of the 
subject, and a firm conviction in the mind of the President that 
the interests of both countries, as well as the interests of the 
two states more immediately concerned, require a prompt effort 
to bring this dispute to an end, constrain him to express an 
earnest hope that your excellency will convene the Legislature 
of Maine, and submit the subject to its grave and candid de- 
liberations. I am, &c, Daniel Webster. 

His Excellency John Fairfield, Governor of Maine. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 39 



The Governor of Maine to the President. 

Executive Department, Augusta, May 27, 1842. 

Sir, — I have the honor to inclose a copy of preamble and 
resolutions adopted by the Legislature of this state relating to 
the subject of the northern and northeastern boundaries of 
Maine ; and also to inform you that the Hon. Edward Kava- 
nagh, Hon. Edward Kent, Hon. William P. Preble, and Hon. 
John Otis have been elected commissioners under said resolves. 
Most respectfully your obedient servant, 

John Fairfield. 

His Excellency John Tyler, President of the United States, Washington. 

Governor Davis to Mr. Webster. 

Executive Department, Worcester, April27, 1842. 

Sir, — Since I last addressed you, I have received your favor 
of the 16th instant, by which it appears the resolutions of the 
Legislature of this commonwealth have reached you. These 
resolves respecting the northeastern boundary were adopted 
to meet the contingency which has occurred, and to avoid any 
necessity for reassembling the Legislature on this account. As 
soon as it became certain that a special envoy was to be dis- 
patched hither by the Queen of the United Kingdoms, it was 
apparent to me that he would be authorized to propose a con- 
ventional line, as this is manifestly the only alternative short 
of acceding to the treaty line of 1783. When the subject was 
brought to the attention of the Legislature, it seemed to enter- 
tain similar views, and with great harmony of opinion provided, 
as well as the state of things, which was then wholly conjec- 
tural, would enable them. 

The council will meet on the 25th of May for the regular 
dispatch of business, when their attention will be invited to the 
expediency of consenting to the appointment of an agent or 
agents to represent the state. I have the honor to be your 
obedient servant, J. Davis. 

The Secretary of State for the United States. 

The Maine Commissioners to Mr. Webster. 

Fuller's Hotel, Washington, June 12, 1842. 

The commissioners of Maine, on the subject of the north- 
eastern boundary, present their respectful compliments to the 
Honorable Mr. Webster, Secretary of State of the United 
States, and beg leave to inform him that they are now in this 
city ready to enter upon the business intrusted to them. They 
also avail themselves of the occasion to request him to name 
the time and place when and where it would suit the conven- 
ience of the Secretary of State to receive them. 



40 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 



Mr. Webster to the Maine Commissioners. 

President's Square, June 12, 1842. 

Mr. Webster has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of 
the note of the commissioners of Maine announcing their ar- 
rival, and their readiness to enter on the business of their ap- 
pointment. 

Mr. W. will have great pleasure in receiving the commis- 
sioners at the Department of State on Monday at one o'clock. 

Commissioners of Massachusetts to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, June 13, 1842. 

Sir, — The undersigned, commissioners appointed by the State 
of Massachusetts to confer with the government of the United 
States upon a conventional line to be established on our north- 
eastern boundary, are ready to proceed in the execution of 
their commission whenever the secretary my signify his wish 
to meet them. Our colleague (Mr. Allen) will probably be 
here to-morrow. 

We have the honor to remain, with the highest respect, 
your obedient servants, 

Abbott Lawrence, 
John Mills. 
Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of Stale. 

Mr. Webster to the Commissioners of Massachusetts. 

Department of State, Washington, June 13, 1842. 

The undersigned has the honor to acknowledge the receipt 
of the communication addressed to him this day by Messrs. 
Lawrence and Mills, commissioners of the commonwealth of 
Massachusetts. He will be happy to see these gentlemen at 
this department at half past one o'clock P.M. to-day. 

Daniel Webster. 

Messrs. Lawrence and Mills, 

Commissioners of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 

Department of State, Washington, June 17, 1842. 

Lord Ashburton having been charged by the queen's gov- 
ernment with full powers to negotiate and settle all matters in 
discussion between the United States and England, and hav- 
ing, on his arrival at Washington, announced that, in relation to 
the question of the northeastern boundary of the United States, 
he was authorized to treat for a conventional line, or line by 
agreement, on such terms and conditions and with such mu- 
tual considerations and equivalents as might be thought just 
and equitable, and that he was ready to enter upon a negotia- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 41 

tion for such conventional line so soon as this government should 
say that it was authorized and ready on its part to commence 
such negotiation, the undersigned, Secretary of State of the 
United States, has now the honor to acquaint his lordship, by 
direction of the President, that the undersigned is ready, on be- 
half of the government of the United States, and duly author- 
ized to proceed to the consideration of such conventional line, 
or line by agreement, and will be happy to have an interview 
on that subject at his lordship's convenience. 

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to tender to 
Lord Ashburton assurances of his distinguished consideration. 

Daniel Webster. 

Lord Ashburton, &c, &c, &c. 

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, June 17, 1842. 

The undersigned, plenipotentiary of her Britannic majesty 
on an extraordinary and special mission to the United States 
of America, has the honor of acknowledging, with much satis- 
faction, the communication received this day from Mr. Web- 
ster, Secretary of State of the United States, that he is ready, 
on behalf of the United States, and duly authorized, in relation 
to the question of the northeastern boundary of the United 
States, to proceed to the consideration of a conventional line, 
or line by agreement, on such terms and conditions, and with 
such mutual considerations and equivalents as might be thought 
just and equitable. And in reply to Mr. Webster's invitation 
to the undersigned to fix some time for their first conference 
upon this subject, he begs to propose to call on Mr. Webster at 
the Department of State to-morrow at 12 o'clock for this pur- 
pose, should that time be perfectly convenient to Mr. Webster. 

The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to assure 
Mr. Webster of* his distinguished consideration. 

Ashburton. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, &c, &c, &c. 

Two or three letters between Mr. Webster and Lord Ash- 
burton respecting the new line of the northeastern boundary 
are omitted, as being principally confined to questions local in 
their nature, and not now of public interest. 

For the same reason, a letter from the Governor of Maine 
to Mr. Webster, of the 29th of June, is omitted. 

Mr. Webster to the Maine Commissioners. 

Department of State, Washington, July 15, 1842. 

Gentlemen, — You have had an opportunity of reading Lord 
Ashburton's note to me of the 11th of July. Since that date I 



42 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

have had full and frequent conferences with him respecting 
the eastern boundary, and believe I understand what is prac- 
ticable to be done on that subject, so far as he is concerned. 
In these conferences he has made no positive or binding prop- 
osition, thinking, perhaps, it would be more desirable, under 
present circumstances, that such proposition should proceed 
from the side of the United States. I have reason to believe, 
however, that he would agree to a line of boundary between 
the United States and the British provinces of Canada and New 
Brunswick, such as is described in a paper accompanying this 
(marked B), and identified by my signature. 

In establishing the line between the monument and the St. 
John, it is thought necessary to adhere to that run and marked 
by the surveyors of the two governments in 1817 and 1818. 
There is no doubt that the line recently run by Major Graham 
is more entirely accurate ; but, being an exparte line, there 
would be objections to agreeing to it without examination, and 
thus another survey would become necessary. Grants and set- 
tlements, also, have been made in conformity with the former 
line, and its errors are so inconsiderable that it is not thought 
that their correction is a sufficient object to disturb these set- 
tlements. Similar considerations have had great weight in ad- 
justing the line in other parts of it. 

The territory in dispute between the two countries contains 
12,027 square miles, equal to 7,697,280 acres. 

By the line described in the accompanying paper, there will 
be assigned to the United States 7015 square miles, equal to 
4,489,000 acres ; and to England 5012 square miles, equal to 
3,207,680 acres. 

By the award of the King of the Netherlands, there was as- 
signed to the United States 7908 square miles, 5,061,120 acres ; 
to England 4119 square miles, 2,036,160 acres. 

The territory proposed to be relinquished to England south 
of the line of the King of the Netherlands is, as you will see, 
the mountain range from the upper part of the St. Francis River 
to the meeting of the two contested lines of boundary, at the 
Metjarmette Portage, in the highlands, near the source of the 
St. John. This mountain tract contains 893 square miles, 
equal to 571,520 acres. It is supposed to be of no value for 
cultivation or settlement. On this point you will see here- 
with a letter from Captain Talcott, who has been occupied two 
summers in exploring the line of the highlands, and is intimate- 
ly acquainted with the territory. The line leaves to the Uni- 
ted States, between the base of the hills and the left bank of 
the St. John, and lying along upon the river, a territory of 
657,280 acres, embracing, without doubt, all the valuable land 
south of the St. Francis and west of the St. John. Of the gen- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 43 

eral division of the territory, it is believed it may be safely said, 
that while the portion remaining with the United States is, in 
quantity, seven twelfths, in value it is at least four fifths of the 
whole. 

Nor is it supposed that the possession of the mountain region 
is of any importance in connection with the defense of the coun- 
try or any military operations. It lies below all the accus- 
tomed practicable passages for troops into and out of Lower 
Canada ; that is to say, the Chaudiere, Lake Champlain, and 
the Richelieu, and the St. Lawrence. If an army, with its ma- 
teriel, could possibly pass into Canada over these mountains, it 
would only find itself on the banks of the St. Lawrence below 
Quebec ; and, on the other hand, it is not conceivable that an 
invading enemy from Lower Canada would attempt a passage 
in this direction, leaving the Chaudiere on one hand and the 
route by Madawaska on the other. 

If this line should be agreed to on the part of the United 
States, I suppose that the British minister would, as an equiv- 
alent, stipulate, first, for the use of the River St. John, for the 
conveyance of the timber growing on any of its branches, to 
tide-water, free from all discriminating tolls, impositions, or in- 
abilities of any kind, the timber enjoying all the privileges of 
British colonial timber. All opinions concur that this privilege 
of navigation must greatly enhance the value of the territory 
and the timber growing thereon, and prove exceedingly useful 
to the people of Maine. Second. That Rouse's Point, in Lake 
Champlain, and the lands heretofore supposed to be within the 
limits of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, but which 
a correct ascertainment of the 45th parallel of latitude shows 
to be in Canada, should be surrendered to the United States. 

It is probable, also, that the disputed line of boundary in Lake 
Superior might be so adjusted as to leave a disputed island 
within the United States. 

These cessions on the part of England would enure partly to 
the benefit of the states of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New 
York, but principally to the United States. The consideration 
on the part of England, for making them, would be the manner 
agreed upon for adjusting the eastern boundary. The price of 
the cession, therefore, whatever it might be, would in fairness 
belong to the two states interested in the manner of that adjust- 
ment. 

Under the influence of these considerations, I am authorized 
to say, that if the commissioners of the two states assent to the 
line as described in the accompanying paper, the United States 
will undertake to pay to these states the sum of two hundred 
and fifty thousand dollars, to be divided between them in equal 
moieties ; and also to undertake for the settlement and pay- 



44 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

ment of the expenses incurred by those states for the mainte- 
nance of the civil posse, and also for a survey which it was 
found necessary to make. 

The line suggested, with the compensations and equivalents 
which have been stated, is now submitted for your considera- 
tion. That it is all which might have been hoped for, looking 
to the strength of the American claim, can hardly be said. But, 
as the settlement of a controversy of such duration is a matter 
of high importance, as equivalents of undoubted value are of- 
fered, as longer postponement and delay would lead to further 
inconvenience, and to the incurring of further expenses, and 
as no better occasion, or, perhaps, any other occasion, for set- 
tling the boundary by agreement, and on the principle of equiv- 
alents, is ever likely to present itself, the government of the 
United States hopes that the commissioners of the two states 
will find it to be consistent with their duty to assent to the line 
proposed, and to the terms and conditions attending the prop- 
osition. 

The President has felt the deepest anxiety for an amicable 
settlement of the question in a manner honorable to the coun- 
try, and such as should preserve the rights and interests of the 
states concerned. From the moment of the announcement of 
Lord Ashburton's mission, he has sedulouslv endeavored to 
pursue a course the most respectful toward the states, and the 
most useful to their interests, as well as the most becoming to 
the character and dignity of the government. He will be hap- 
py if the result shall be such as shall satisfy Maine and Mas- 
sachusetts, as well as the rest of the country. With these sen- 
timents on the part of the President, and with the conviction that 
no more advantageous arrangement can be made, the subject is 
now referred to the grave deliberation of the commissioners. 

I have the honor to be, with great respect, 

Your obedient servant, 

Daniel Webster. 

The Hon. the Commissioners of Maine. 

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Washington. July 16, 1842. 

Sir, — There is a further question of disputed boundary be- 
tween Great Britain and the United States, called the north- 
west boundary, about which we have had some conferences ; 
and I now proceed to state the terms which I am ready to 
agree to for the settlement of this difference. As the principal 
object in dispute is to be given up by Great Britain, I trust, sir, 
that you will here again recognize the spirit of friendly con- 
ciliation which has guided my government in disposing of 
these questions. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 45 

1 have already sufficiently discussed with you the bounda- 
ries between her majesty's provinces and the United States, 
from the monument at the head of the River St. Croix to the 
monument on the River St. Lawrence, near the village of St. 
Regis. 

The commissioners under the sixth article of the Treaty of 
Ghent succeeded in continuing this boundary from St. Regis 
through the St. Lawrence and the great northern lakes, up to 
a point in the channel between Lake Huron and Lake Superior. 

A further continuation of this boundary, from this point 
through Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods, was con- 
fided to the same commissioners under the seventh article of 
the Treaty of Ghent, but they were, unfortunately, unable to 
agree, and have consequently left this portion of the boundary 
undetermined. Its final settlement has been much desired by 
both governments, and urgently pressed, by communications 
from Mr. Secretary Forsyth to Mr. Fox, in 1839 and 1840. 

What I have now to propose can not, I feel assured, be oth- 
erwise than satisfactory for this purpose. 

The commissioners who failed in their endeavors to make 
this settlement differed on two points : 

First. As to the appropriation of an island called St. George's 
Island, lying in the water communication between Lake Hu- 
ron and Lake Superior ; and, 

Secondly. As to the boundary through the water communi- 
cations from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods. 

The first point I am ready to give up to you, and you are 
no doubt aware that it is the only object of any real value in 
this controversy. The Island of St. George is reported to 
contain 25,920 acres of very fertile land ; but, the other things 
connected with these boundaries being satisfactorily arranged, 
a line shall be drawn so as to throw this island within the lim- 
its of the United States. 

In considering the second point, it really appears of little 
importance to either party how the line be determined through 
the wild country between Lake Superior and the Lake of the 
Woods, but it is important that some line should be fixed and 
known. 

The American commissioner asked for the line from Lake 
Superior up the River Kamanastiguia to the lake called Dog 
Lake, which he supposed to be the same as that called Long 
Lake in the treaties, thence through Sturgeon Lake to the Lac 
la Pluie, to that point where the two lines assumed by the com- 
missioners again meet. 

The British commissioner, on the other hand, contended for 
a line from the southwestern extremity, at a point called Le 
Fond du Lac, to the middle of the mouth of the estuary, or lake, 



46 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

of St. Louis River, thence up that river through Vermilion 
River to Lac la Pluie. 

Attempts were made to compromise these differences, but 
they failed, apparently more from neither party being willing 
to give up the Island of St. George, than from much import- 
ance being attached to any other part of the case. 

Upon the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods, 
both commissioners agreed to abandon their respective claims, 
and to adopt a middle course, for which the American com- 
missioner admitted that there was some ground of preference. 
This was from Pigeon River, a point between Kamanastiguia 
and the Fond du Lac ; and although there were differences as 
to the precise point near the mouth of Pigeon River where the 
line should begin, neither party seemed to have attached much 
importance to this part of the subject. 

I would propose that the line be taken from a point about 
six miles south of Pigeon River, where the Grand Portage 
commences on the lake, and continued along the line of said 
Portage, alternately by land and water, to Lac la Pluie, the 
existing route by land and by water remaining common to both 
parties. This line has the advantage of being known, and at- 
tended with no doubt or uncertainty in running it. 

In making the important concession on this boundary of the 
Isle of St. George, I must attach a condition to it of accommo- 
dation, which experience has proved to be necessary in the 
navigation of the great waters which bound the two countries 
— an accommodation which can, I apprehend, be no possible 
inconvenience to either. This was asked by the British com- 
missioner in the course of the attempts of compromise above 
alluded to ; but nothing was done, because he was not then pre- 
pared, as I am now, to yield the property and sovereignty of 
St. George's Island. 

The first of these two cases is at the head of Lake St. Clair, 
where the river of that name empties into it from Lake Huron. 
It is represented that the channel bordering the United States 
coast in this part is not only the best for navigation, but, with 
some winds, is the only serviceable passage. I do not know 
that, under such circumstances, the passage of a British vessel 
would be refused ; but, on a final settlement of boundaries, it 
is desirable to stipulate for what the commissioners would 
probably have settled had the facts been known to them. 

The other case, of nearly the same description, occurs on 
the St. Lawrence, some miles above the boundary at St. Regis. 
In distributing the islands of the river by the commissioners, 
Barnhart's Island and the Long Sault Islands were assigned to 
America. This part of the river has very formidable rapids, 
and the only safe passage is on the southern or American side, 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 47 

between those islands and the main-land. We want a clause 
in our present treaty to say that, for a short distance, viz., from 
the upper end of Upper Long Sault Island to the lower end of 
Barnhart's Island, the several channels of the river shall be 
used in common by the boatmen of the two countries. 

I am not aware that these very reasonable demands are 
likely to meet with any objection, especially where the United 
States will have surrendered to them all that is essential in 
the boundary I have now to propose to you. 

I beg you will be assured, sir, of my unfeigned and distin- 
guished consideration. 

Ashburton. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, &c, &c., &c. 

Commissioners of Massachusetts to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 20, 1842. 

Sir, — We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
communication of the 15th of July, addressed to us as commis- 
sioners of Massachusetts, authorized to act in her behalf in 
the settlement of the controversy concerning the northeastern 
boundary of the United States. The proposal therein present- 
ed for our assent, in behalf of the government we represent, to 
the establishment of the conventional boundary indicated in 
your communication, and upon the terms and equivalents there- 
in set forth, has received our faithful consideration, and, with- 
out further delay, we submit the following reply : 

After the many interviews which we have had the pleasure 
to hold with you during the progress of the negotiation, which 
is drawing to its close, it is unnecessary for us to express our 
full concurrence in the sentiment that the line suggested, with 
its compensations and equivalents, is not all which might have 
been hoped for, in view of the strength of the American claim 
to the territory in dispute. But inasmuch as in the progress 
of the negotiation, conducted with great deliberation, every 
proposition has been put forth which any party, in whatever 
manner and to whatever extent it may be interested, has been 
disposed to submit for consideration and adoption, and the ul- 
timate point has been reached at which negotiation must re- 
sult in a compact, or the interruption of further effort for its 
accomplishment, we proceed to discharge the remaining duty 
which is devolved upon us. 

We are fully aware of the importance of the act that we are 
called upon to perform. It is not less than the relinquishment, 
by the commonwealth of Massachusetts, of territory which she 
has always claimed to be a part of her possessions, and to 
which she believes she has a clear and indisputable title. So 
strong is the conviction of the right of Massachusetts and Maine 



48 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

to the undisturbed enjoyment of the land constituting what is 
called the disputed territory, by force of the treaty which term- 
inated the war of the Revolution, that she would prefer an ap- 
peal to the same arbitrament by which the acknowledgment 
of her right was originally obtained, to a surrender, without 
just equivalents, of any portion of that territory. Still she is 
aware that the government and people of the United States 
desire to preserve peace and friendly relations with other na- 
tions, so long as they can be maintained with honor, by con- 
cessions which not a just policy alone, but that which is liberal 
and magnanimous, may require. She partakes of the common 
spirit, and its influence pervades all her action throughout this 
negotiation. 

There are other considerations of weight in the decision of 
this question. Though the title of Massachusetts to the lands 
in dispute is believed to be perfect, it is not to be overlooked 
that they have been the subject of controversy through many 
years ; that attempts, by negotiation and through the interven- 
tion of an umpire, have been unsuccessfully made to extinguish 
a conflicting claim ; and that the nations which are now seek- 
ing by renewed negotiations to put a period to the protract- 
ed strife, while desiring peace, have been brought to the verge 
of destructive war, through dissensions incident to a disputed 
boundary. Should this negotiation fail of a successful issue, 
the alternative offered is a renewed submission of our rights to 
the determination of others. Past experience enforces the be- 
lief that other years must elapse, and great inconvenience be 
felt, before a decision can be obtained ; and the same monitor 
suggests the obvious truth, that however the title of Massa- 
chusetts and Maine, and of the United States, may be firmly 
established in justice, it is not equally certain that it would be 
confirmed by the tribunal, from whose decision, whatever it 
might be, no appeal could honorably be taken. 

But the considerations which must powerfully impel the 
state of Massachusetts to acquiesce in the terms of a treaty 
that ) r our communication indicates are, the known desire of 
the people of the United States for a speedy settlement of the 
vexed question of the boundary, and the request of the general 
government, expressed through its constitutional organs, that 
Massachusetts would yield her consent to an arrangement 
which that government deems to be reasonable. The state 
we have the honor to represent would be slow to disappoint 
the hopes of the nation, and reluctant to reject terms which the 
government of the United States urges her to accept, as being 
compatible, in the estimation of that government, with the in- 
terests of the state, and essential to the complete adjustment 
of difficulties which the security of national peace demands. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 49 

Whether the national boundary suggested by you be suita- 
ble or unsuitable, whether the compensations that Great Britain 
oilers to the United States for the territory conceded to her be 
adequate or inadequate, and whether the treaty which shall be 
effected shall be honorable to the country or incompatible with 
its rights and dignity, are questions not for Massachusetts, but 
for the general government, upon its responsibility to the whole 
country, to decide. It is for the state to determine for what 
equivalents she will relinquish to the United States her interests 
in certain lands in the disputed territory, so that they may be 
made available to the government of the United States in the 
establishment of the northeastern boundary, and in a general 
settlement of all matters in controversy between Great Britain 
and the United States. In this view of the subject, and with 
the understanding that by the words " the nearest point of the 
highlands," in your description of the proposed line of boundary, 
is meant the nearest point of the crest of the highlands ; that 
the right to the free navigation of the River St. John shall in- 
clude the right to the free transportation thereupon of all prod- 
ucts of the soil as well as of the forest ; and that the pecuniary 
compensation to be paid by the Federal government to the 
state of Massachusetts shall be increased to the sum of one 
hundred and fifty thousand dollars, the state of Massachusetts, 
through her commissioners, hereby relinquishes to the United 
States her interest in the lands which will be excluded from 
the dominion of the United States by the establishment of the 
boundary aforesaid. 

We have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient 
servants, 

Abbot Lawrence, 
John Mills, 
Charles Allen. 

Hon. Daniel Webstek, Secretary of State. 

The Maine Commissioners to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 22, 1842. 
Sir, — The undersigned, commissioners of the state of Maine 
on the subject of the northeastern boundary, have the honor 
to acknowledge the receipt of your note, addressed to them 
under date of the 15th instant, with inclosures therein referred 
to. The proposition first submitted by the special minister of 
Great Britain, on the subject of the boundary, having been dis- 
agreed to, and the proposition made on the part of the United 
States, with the assent of the commissioners of Maine and 
Massachusetts, having been rejected as inadmissible, coupled 
with an expression of surprise that it should have been made ; 
and Lord Ashburton, in the same communication, having in- 

D 



50 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

timated a preference for conference rather than correspond- 
ence, and having omitted in his note to make any new propo- 
sition, except a qualified withdrawal of a part of his former 
one, we learn from your note that you " have had full and 
frequent conferences with him respecting the northeastern 
boundary," and that you " believe you understand what is 
practicable to be done on that subject, so far as he (Lord Ash- 
burton) is concerned." We also learn, that "in these confer- 
ences he has made no positive or binding proposition, thinking, 
perhaps, it would be more desirable, under present circum- 
stances, that such a proposition should proceed from the side 
of the United States ;" but that you have reason to believe that 
he would agree to a line of boundary such as is described in 
the paper accompanying your note (marked B) ; and, also, that 
you entertain the conviction " that no more advantageous ar- 
rangement can be made ;" and, with this conviction, you refer 
the subject to the grave deliberation of the commissioners. 

Regarding this as substantially a proposition on the part of 
the United States, with the knowledge and assent of Great 
Britain, and as the one most favorable to us which, under any 
circumstances, the latter government would either offer or ac- 
cept, the undersigned have not failed to bestow upon it the 
grave deliberation and consideration which its nature and im- 
portance, and their own responsible position, demand. If the 
result of that deliberation should not fully justify the expressed 
hopes or meet the expectations and views of the government 
of the United States, we beg you to be assured that such failure 
will be the result of their firm convictions of duty to the state 
they represent, and will not arise from any want of an anxious 
desire, on their part, to bring the controversy to an amicable, 
just, and honorable termination. In coming to this considera- 
tion, they have not been unmindful that the state of Maine, 
with the firmest conviction of her absolute right to the whole 
territory drawn into controversy, and sustained, as she has 
been, by the unanimous concurrence of her sister states, and 
of the government of the Union, repeatedly expressed and 
cordially given, and without a wavering doubt as to the per- 
fect practicability of marking the treaty line upon the face of 
the earth, according to her claim, has yet at all times mani- 
fested a spirit of forbearance and patience under what she 
could not but deem unfounded pretensions, and unwarrantable 
delays, and irritating encroachments. In the midst of all the 
provocations to resistance, and to the assertion and mainte- 
nance of her extreme rights, she has never forgotten that she is 
a member of the Union, and she has endeavored to deserve the 
respect, sympathy, and co-operation of her sister states, by 
pursuing a course equally removed from pusillanimity and 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 51 

rashness, and by maintaining her difficult position in a spirit 
that would forbear much for peace, but would yield nothing 
through fear. At all times, and under all circumstances, she 
has been ready and anxious to bring the controversy to a close 
upon terms honorable and equitable, and to unite in any proper 
scheme to effect that object. In this spirit, and with these 
convictions, Maine instantly and cheerfully acceded to the pro- 
posal of the general government, made through you, to appoint 
commissioners. 

That no obstacle might be interposed to the successful issue 
of this negotiation, her Legislature gave to her commissioners 
ample and unlimited powers, which, but for the presumed ne- 
cessity of the case, her people would be slow to yield to any 
functionaries. Her commissioners, thus appointed and thus 
empowered, assumed the duties imposed upon them in the 
spirit and with the views of the government and people of 
Maine. They came to the negotiation with a firm conviction 
of her rights, but with a disposition and determination to meet 
a conciliatory proposition for a conventional line in a similar 
spirit, and to yield, for any reasonable equivalent, all that they 
presumed would be asked or desired by the other party. 
They, with the other citizens of Maine, were not unapprised 
of the fact so often alluded to in our former communications, 
that England had long been anxious to obtain the undisputed 
possession of that portion of the territory which would enable 
her to maintain a direct and uninterrupted communication be- 
tween her provinces. So far as they could learn from any 
source, this was the only professed object she had in view, and 
the only one which had been regarded as in contemplation. 

With this understanding, the undersigned at once decided 
to yield, upon the most liberal terms, this long-sought con- 
venience ; and they indulged the confident expectation that 
such a concession would at once meet all the wants and wishes 
of the English government, and bring the mission to a speedy 
and satisfactory close. When, therefore, we were met at the 
outset by a proposition which required the cession, on our part, 
of all the territory north of the St. John's River, and enough of 
the territory on the south to include the Madawaska settlement, 
extending at least fifty miles up that river, with no other 
equivalents to us than the limited right to float timber down 
that river, and to the United States the small tracts adjacent 
to the 45th parallel of latitude in other states, we could not but 
express our regret to be thus, as it were, repelled. But re- 
garding this rather as the extreme limit of a claim subject, not- 
withstanding the strong language of Lord Ashburton, to be 
restrained and limited, we deemed it proper, in our communi- 
cation of the 16th instant, after declining to accede to the 



52 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

proposition, in conjunction with the commissioners of Massachu- 
setts, to point out and offer a conventional line of boundary as 
therein specified. In fixing on this line, we were mainly .anx- 
ious to select such a one as should at once and pre-eminently 
give to Great Britain all that was necessary for her understood 
object, and to preserve to Maine the remainder of her territory. 
To accomplish this object, we departed from the river to se- 
cure the unobstructed use of the accustomed way from Quebec 
to Halifax. We are not aware that any objection has been 
made from any quarter to this line, as not giving up to Great 
Britain all that she needed, or could reasonably ask, for the 
above purpose. And although Lord Ashburton did not deem 
it necessary to " examine the line (proposed) in its precise de- 
tails," or to look at a map on which it could most readily be 
traced, and although he has seen fit to say that he was " quite 
at a loss to account for such a proposal," yet he has not in- 
timated that the line suggested fails in any respect to meet the 
object we had in view, and which we frankly and readily 
avowed. It is well known to you, sir, that we had determined 
upon no such inflexible adherence to that exact demarkation as 
would have prevented us from changing it, upon any reasona- 
ble evidence that it did not in every respect meet the require- 
ments of the above stated proposition in relation to a perfect 
line of communication. But believing then, as we do now, that 
it did thus meet all these requirements, and although it was, as 
we feel bound to say, the general and confident expectation of 
the people of Maine, that any relinquishment on our part of 
jurisdiction and territory would be, in part at least, compen- 
sated from that strip of contiguous territory on the west bank 
of the St. John's, yet, when we were solemnly assured that no 
such cession could be made under his lordship's instructions, 
w r e forbore to press for this reasonable and just exchange, and 
contented ourselves with accepting the limited right of naviga- 
tion of the river, as the only equivalent from Great Britain for 
the territory and jurisdiction we offered to surrender ; and, as 
you will remark, we offered not merely a right of way on land 
For a similar easement on the water, but the entire and abso- 
lute title to the land and jurisdiction of the large tract north 
and east of the line specified. It can not be denied that it pre- 
serves to us a frontier in a forest almost impenetrable on the 
north, which would defend itself by its own natural character, 
and that if any thing should be deducted from the agricultural 
value of that portion beyond the Madawaska settlements, on 
account of its ruggedness and its want of attraction to settlers, 
much may justly be added to its value as a boundary between 
the two nations. 

The value of this tract to Great Britain, both in a civil and 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 53 

military point of view, can not be overlooked. It gives her 
the much-coveted route for the movement of troops in war, and 
her mails and passengers in peace, and is most particularly 
important in case of renewed outbreaks in her North Ameri- 
can colonies. The assumption of jurisdiction in the Mada- 
waska settlement, and the pertinacity with which it has been 
maintained, are practical evidence of the value attached to the 
tract by the government of her Britannic majesty. 

We have alluded to these views of the value and importance 
of this territory not with any design of expressing our regret 
that we have thus offered it, but to show that we are fully 
aware of all these views and circumstances affecting the ques- 
tion, and that we duly appreciate the far-seeing sagacity and 
prudence of those British statesmen who so early attempted to 
secure it as a cession, by negotiation, and the suggestion of 
equivalents. 

The answer of Lord Ashburton to your note of the 8th in- 
stant contained a distinct rejection of our offer, with a sub- 
stantial withdrawal of his claim to any territory south of the 
River St. John, but not modifying the claim for the relinquish- 
ment, on the part of Maine and the United States, of all north 
of that river. Our views in reference to many of the topics in 
his lordship's reply we have had the honor heretofore to com- 
municate to you in our note of the 16th instant ; and to that 
answer we would now refer, as forming an important part of 
this negotiation, and as containing our refusal of the line indi- 
cated. We are now called upon to consider the final proposi- 
tion made by or through the government of the United States 
for our consideration and acceptance. The line indicated may 
be shortly defined as the line recommended by the King of the 
Netherlands, and an addition thereto of a strip of land at the 
base of the highlands, running to the source of the southwest 
branch of the St. John. The examination and consideration 
of all other lines, which might better meet our views and ob- 
jects, have been precluded by the declaration, and other plenary 
evidence we have, that the line specified in your communica- 
tion is the most advantageous that can be offered to us ; and 
that no one of less extent, or yielding, in fact, less to the other 
party, can be deemed admissible. We are, therefore, brought 
to the single and simple consideration of the question whether 
we can, consistently with our views of our duty to the state 
we represent, accept the proposition submitted by you. 

So far as any claim is interposed, based upon a supposed 
equity arising from the recommendation of the King of the 
Netherlands, we have only to refer to our former note for our 
views on that topic. We have now only to add, that we came 
to this conference untrammeled and free, to see if, in a spirit 



54 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

of amity and equity, we could not find and agree upon some 
new line which, while it yielded all that was needed by one 
party, might fairly be the motive and ground-work for equiva- 
lent territory or rights granted to the other ; and that we can not 
make any admission or consent to any proposition which would 
not revive, but put vitality and power into that which, up to 
this time, has never possessed either. We base our whole ac- 
tion on grounds entirely independent of that advice of the 
arbiter. 

It may possibly be intimated in this connection, as it has 
more than once been heretofore, that the commissioners of 
Maine and the people of. that state are disposed to regard the 
whole territory as clearly falling within their rightful limits, 
and are not willing to consider the question as one in doubt 
and dispute, and, therefore, one to be settled as if each party 
had nearly or quite equal claims. Certainly, sir, the people 
and government of Maine do not deny that the question has 
been drawn into dispute. They have had too many and too 
recent painful evidences of that fact to allow such a doubt, 
however much at a loss they may be to perceive any just or 
tenable grounds on which the adversary claim is based. For 
years they have borne and forborne, and struggled to maintain 
their rights, in a peaceable and yet unflinching spirit, against 
what appeared to them injustice from abroad and neglect at 
home. But they have yet to learn that the mere fact that an 
adverse claim is made and persisted in, and maintained by in- 
genuity and ability for a series of years, and increasing in ex- 
tent and varying its grounds as years roll on, is to be regard- 
ed as a reason why courtesy should require, in opposition to 
the fact, a relinquishment of the plain, explicit, and sincere 
language of perfect conviction and unwavering confidence, or 
that a continued, adverse, and resisted claim may yet, by mere 
lapse of time and reiteration, ripen into a right. But we desire 
it to be distinctly remembered that, in this attempt to negotiate 
for a conventional line, Maine has not insisted, or even request- 
ed, that any formal or virtual admission of her title to the 
whole territory should be a condition preliminary to a settle- 
ment. We hold, and we claim, the right to express at all 
times, and in all suitable places, our opinion of the perfect 
right of Maine to the whole territory ; but we have never as- 
sumed it as a point of honor that our adversary should ac- 
knowledge it. Indeed, we have endeavored to view the sub- 
ject rather in reference to a settlement, on even hard terms for 
us, than to dwell on the strong aspect of the case, when we 
look at the naked question of our right and title under the 
treaty. It could hardly be expected, however, that we should 
silently, and thus virtually, acquiesce in any assumption that 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 55 

our claim was unsustained, and that " the treaty line was not 
executable." On this point we expressed ourselves fully in a 
former note. 

In returning to the direct consideration of the last proposi- 
tion, and the terms and conditions attending it, in justice to 
ourselves and our state, we feel bound to declare, and we con- 
fidently appeal to you, sir, in confirmation of the declaration, 
that this negotiation has been conducted, on our part, with no 
mercenary views, and with no design to extort unreasonable 
equivalents or extravagant compensation. The state of Maine 
has always felt an insuperable repugnance to parting with any 
portion even of her disputed territory for mere pecuniary 
recompense from adverse claimants. She comes here for no 
mere bargain for the sale of acres, in the spirit or with the arts 
of traffic. Her commissioners have been much less anxious to 
secure benefit and recompense than to preserve the state from 
unnecessary curtailment and dismemberment. The proposi 
tion we made is evidence of the fact. We have heretofore 
expressed some opinions of the mutual character of the bene- 
fits to each party from the free navigation of the St. John. 
Without entering, however, upon the particular consideration 
of the terms and conditions, which we have not thought it nec- 
essary to do, we distinctly state that our great repugnance to 
the line is based upon the extent of territory required to be 
yielded. We may, however, in passing, remark that all the 
pecuniary offers contained in your note, most liberally con- 
strued, would scarcely recompense and repay to Maine the 
amount of money and interest which she has actually expend- 
ed in defending and protecting the territory from wrongs 
arising and threatened by reason of its condition and disputed 
ground. 

Considering, then, this proposition as involving the surrender 
of more territory than the avowed objects of England require, 
as removing our landmarks from the well-known and well-de- 
fined boundary of the treaty of 1783, the crest of the highlands, 
besides insisting upon the line of the arbiter in its full extent, we 
feel bound to say, after the most careful and anxious consider- 
ation, that we can not bring our minds to the conviction that 
the proposal is such as Maine had a right to expect. 

But we are not unaware of the expectations which have been 
and still are entertained of a favorable issue to this negotiation 
by the government and people of this country, and the great 
disappointment which would be felt and expressed at its failure. 
Nor are we unmindful of the future, warned as we have been 
by the past, that any attempts to determine the line by arbitra- 
tion may be either fruitless, or with a result more to be de- 
plored. 



56 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

We are now given to understand that the executive of the 
United States, representing the sovereignty of the Union, as- 
sents to the proposal, and that this department of the govern- 
ment, at least, is anxious for its acceptance, as, in its view, most 
expedient for the general good. 

The commissioners of Massachusetts have already given 
their assent on behalf of that commonwealth. Thus situated, 
the commissioners of Maine, invoking the spirit of attachment 
and patriotic devotion of their state to the Union, and being 
willing to yield to the deliberate convictions of her sister states 
as to the path of duty, and to interpose no obstacles to an ad- 
justment which the general judgment of the nation shall pro- 
nounce as honorable and expedient, even if that judgment shall 
lead to a surrender of a portion of the birth-right of the people 
of their state, and prized by them because it is their birth-right, 
have determined to overcome their objections to the proposal 
so far as to say, that if, upon mature consideration, the Senate 
of the United States shall advise and consent to the ratification 
of a treaty, corresponding in its terms with your proposal, and 
with the conditions in our memorandum accompanying this 
note (marked A), and identified by our signatures, they, by 
virtue of the power vested in them by the resolves of the 
Legislature of Maine, give the assent of that state to such con- 
ventional line, with the terms, conditions, and equivalents 
herein mentioned. | 

We have the honor to be, sir, with high respect, your obe- 
dient servants, 

Edward Kavanagh, 
Edward Kent, 
John Otis, 
William P. Preble. 
Hon. Daniel Webster, &c, &c., &c. 



The commissioners of Maine request that the following pro- 
visions, or the substance thereof, shall be incorporated into the 
proposed treaty, should one be agreed on : 

1st. That the amount of "the disputed territory fund" (so 
called) received by the authorities of New Brunswick, for tim- 
ber cut on the disputed territory, shall be paid over to the 
United States, for the use of Maine and Massachusetts, in 
full, and a particular account rendered ; or a gross sum, to be 
agreed upon by the commissioners of Maine and Massachu- 
setts, shall be paid by Great Britain as a settlement of that 
fund; and that all claims, bonds, and securities taken for tim- 
ber cut upon the territory be transferred to the authorities of 
Maine and Massachusetts. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 57 

2d. That all grants of land within that portion of the dis- 
puted territory conceded to Great Britain, made by Maine and 
Massachusetts, or either of them, shall be confirmed, and all 
equitable possessory titles shall be quieted, to those who pos- 
sess the claims ; and we assent to a reciprocal provision for 
the benefit of settlers falling within the limits of Maine. And 
we trust that the voluntary suggestion of the British minister 
in regard to John Baker, and any others, if there be any, simi- 
larly situated, will be carried into effect, so as to secure their 
rights. 

3d. That the right of free navigation of the St. John, as set 
forth in the proposition of Mr. Webster, on the part of the 
United States, shall extend to and include the products of the 
soil, in the same manner as the products of the forest ; and that 
no toll, tax, or duty be levied upon timber coming from the ter- 
ritory of Maine. 

Edward Kavanagh, 
Edward Kent, 
John Otis, 
William P. Preble. 

Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 

Department of State, Washington, July 27, 1842. 

My Lord, — I have now to propose to your lordship a line 
of division embracing the disputed portions of the boundary 
between the United States and the British provinces of New 
Brunswick and the Canadas, with its considerations and equiv- 
alents, such as conforms, I believe, in substance, to the result 
of the many conferences and discussions which have taken 
place between us. 

The acknowledged territories of the United States and En- 
gland join upon each other from the Atlantic Ocean to the 
eastern foot of the Rocky Mountains, a distance of more than 
three thousand miles. From the ocean to the source of the 
St. Croix the line of division has been ascertained and fixed by 
agreement : from the source of the St. Croix to a point near 
St. Regis, on the River St. Lawrence, it may be considered 
as unsettled or controverted ; from this last-mentioned point, 
along the St. Lawrence and through the lakes, it is settled, 
until it reaches the water communication between Lake Hu- 
ron and Lake Superior. At this point the commissioners, un- 
der the seventh article of the Treaty of Ghent, found a subject 
of disagreement which they could not overcome, in deciding 
up which branch or channel the line should proceed, till it 
should reach a point in the middle of St. Mary's River, about 
one mile above St. George's or Sugar Island. 

From the middle of the water communication between the 



58 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

two lakes, at the point last mentioned, the commissioners ex- 
tended the line through the remaining part of that water com- 
munication, and across Lake Superior, to a point north of He 
Royale ; but they could not agree in what direction the line 
should run from this last-mentioned point, nor where it should 
leave Lake Superior, nor how it should be extended to the 
Rainy Lake, or Lac la Pluie. From this last-mentioned lake 
they agreed on the line to the northwesternmost point of the 
Lake of the Woods, which they found to be in latitude 49 deg. 
23 min. 55 sec. The line extends, according to existing treat- 
ies, due south from this point to the 49th parallel of north lat- 
itude, and by that parallel to the Rocky Mountains. 

Not being able to agree upon the whole line, the commis- 
sioners, under the seventh article, did not make any joint report 
to their respective governments. So far as they agreed on 
any part of the line, that part has been considered settled ; but 
it may be well to give validity to these portions of the line by 
a treaty. 

To complete the boundary line, therefore, and to remove all 
doubts and disputes, it is necessary for the two governments 
to come to an agreement on three points : 

1st. What shall be the line on the northeastern and northern 
limits of the United States, from the St. Croix to the St. Law- 
rence ? This is by far the most important and difficult of the 
subjects, and involves the principal questions of equivalents 
and compensations. 

2d. What shall be the course of the boundary from the point 
where the commissioners, under the sixth article of the Treaty 
of Ghent, terminated their labors, to wit : a point in the Nee- 
bish Channel, near Muddy Lake, in the water communication 
between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, to a point in the 
middle of St. Mary's River, one mile above Sugar Island ? 
This question is important, as it involves the ownership of that 
island. 

3d. What shall be the line from the point north of He Roy- 
ale, in Lake Superior, to which the commissioners of the two 
governments arrived by agreement, to the Rainy Lake ; and 
also to confirm those parts of the line to which the said com- 
missioners agreed ? 

Besides agreeing upon the line of division through which 
these controverted portions of the boundary pass, you have sug- 
gested also, as the proposed settlement proceeds upon the 
ground of compromise and equivalents, that boats belonging to 
her majesty's subjects may pass the falls of the Long Saut, in 
the St. Lawrence, on either side of the Long Saut Islands , 
and that the passages between the islands lying at or near the 
junction of the River St. Clair, with the lake of that name, 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 59 

shall be severally free and open to the vessels of both coun- 
tries. There appears no reasonable objection to what is re- 
quested in these particulars ; and on the part of the United 
States it is desirable that their vessels, in proceeding from 
Lake Erie into the Detroit River, should have the privilege of 
passing between Bois Blanc, an island belonging to England, 
and the Canadian shore, the deeper and better channel being 
on that side. 

The line, then, now proposed to be agreed to may be thus 
described : 

Beginning at the monument at the source of the River St. 
Croix, as designated and agreed to by the commissioners, un- 
der the fifth article of the treaty of 1794, between the govern- 
ments of the United States and Great Britain ; thence north, 
following the exploring line run and marked by the surveyors 
of the two governments in the years 1817 and 1818, under the 
fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent, to its intersection with the 
River St. John, and to the middle of the channel thereof; 
thence up the middle of the main channel of the said River St. 
John to the mouth of the River St. Francis ; thence up the 
middle of the channel of the said River St. Francis, and of the 
lakes through which it flows, to the outlet of the Lake Pohe- 
nagamook ; thence southwesterly, in a straight line, to a point 
on the northwest branch of the River St. John, which point 
shall be ten miles distant from the main branch of the St. John, 
in a straight line, and in the nearest direction ; but if the said 
point shall be found to be less than seven miles from the near- 
est point of the summit, or crest, of the highlands that divide 
those rivers which empty themselves into the River St. Law- 
rence from those which fall into the River St. John, then the 
said point shall be made to recede down the said river to a 
point seven miles, in a straight line, from the said summit or 
crest ; thence, in a straight line, in a course about south, eight 
degrees west, to the point where the parallel of latitude of 46 
degrees 25 minutes north intersects the southwest branch of 
the St. John ; thence southerly, by the said branch, to the 
source thereof in the highlands at the Metjarmette Portage ; 
thence down along the said highlands which divide the waters 
which empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence from 
those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the head of Hall's 
stream ; thence down the middle of said stream, till the line 
thus run intersects the old line of boundary surveyed and 
marked by Valentine and Collins, previously to the year 1774, 
as the 45th degree of north latitude, and which has been known 
and understood to be the line of actual division between the 
states of New York and Vermont on one side, and the British 
province of Canada on the other ; and from said point of inter- 



60 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

section, west, along the said dividing line, as heretofore known 
and understood, to the Iroquois, or St. Lawrence River; and 
from the place where the joint commissioners terminated their 
labors under the sixth article of the Treaty of Ghent, to wit : 
at a point in the Neebish Channel, near Muddy Lake, the line 
shall run into and along the ship channel between St. Joseph's 
and St. Tammany islands, to the division of the channel at or 
near the head of St. Joseph's Island ; thence, turning eastward- 
ly and northwardly, around the lower end of St. Georges', or 
Sugar Island, and following the middle of the channel which 
divides St. George's from St. Joseph's Island ; thence up the 
east Neebish Channel nearest to St. George's Island, through 
the middle of Lake George ; thence west of Jonas Island, into 
St. Mary's River, to a point in the middle of that river about 
one mile above St. George's, or Sugar Island, so as to appro- 
priate and assign the said island to the United States ; thence, 
adopting the line traced on the maps by the commissioners, 
through the River St. Mary and Lake Superior, to a point 
north of He Royale, in said lake, one hundred yards to the 
north and east of He Chapeau, which last-mentioned island lies 
near the northeastern point of He Royale, where the line 
marked by the commissioners terminates ; and from the last- 
mentioned point, southwesterly, through the middle of the sound, 
between He Royale and the northwestern main land, to the 
mouth of Pigeon River, and up the said river to and through 
the north and south Fowl lakes, to the lakes of the height of 
land between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods ; 
thence along the water communication to Lake Saisaginaga, 
and through that lake ; thence to and through Cypress Lake, 
Lac du Bois Blanc, Lac la Croix, Little Vermilion Lake, and 
Lake Namecan, and through the several smaller lakes, straits, 
or streams connecting the lakes here mentioned, to that point 
in Lac la Pluie, or Rainy Lake, at the Chaudiere Falls, from 
which the commissioners traced the line, to the most north- 
western point of the Lake of the Woods ; thence along the 
said line to the said most northwestern point, being in latitude 
49 degrees, 23 minutes, 55 seconds north, and in longitude 95 
degrees, 14 minutes, 38 seconds west from the observatory at 
Greenwich ; thence, according to existing treaties, the line ex- 
tends due south to its intersection with the 49th parallel of 
north latitude, and along that parallel to the Rocky Mountains. 
It being understood that all the water communications, and all 
the usual portages, along the line from Lake Superior to the 
Lake of the Woods, and also Grand Portage from the shore 
of Lake Superior to the Pigeon River, as now actually used, 
shall be free and open to the use of the subjects and citizens of 
both countries. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 61 

It is desirable to follow the description and the exact line 
of the original treaty as far as practicable. There is reason to 
think that " Long Lake," mentioned in the treaty of 1783, meant 
merely the estuary of the Pigeon River, as no lake called " Long 
Lake," or any other water strictly conforming to the idea of a 
lake, is found in that quarter. This opinion is strengthened by 
the fact that the words of the treaty would seem to imply that 
the water intended as " Long Lake" was immediately joining 
Lake Superior. In one respect, an exact compliance with the 
words of the treaty is not practicable. There is no continuous 
water communication between Lake Superior and the Lake 
of the Woods, as the Lake of the Woods is known to discharge 
its waters through the Red River of the north into Hudson's 
Bay. The dividing height or ridge between the eastern sources 
of the tributaries of the Lake of the Woods and the western 
sources of Pigeon River appears, by authentic maps, to be dis- 
tant about forty miles from the mouth of Pigeon River, on the 
shore of Lake Superior. 

It is not improbable that, in the imperfection of knowledge 
which then existed of those remote countries, and, perhaps, mis- 
led by Mitchell's Map, the negotiators of the treaty of 1783 
suppo'sed the Lake of the Woods to discharge its waters into 
Lake Superior. The broken and difficult nature of the water 
communication from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods 
renders numerous portages necessary ; and it is right that 
these water communications and these portages should make a 
common highway, where necessary, for the use of the subjects 
and citizens of both governments. 

When the proposed line shall be properly described in the 
treaty, the grant by England of the right to use the waters 
of the River St. John for the purpose of transporting to the 
mouth of that river all the timber and agricultural products 
raised in Maine, on the waters of the St. John, or any of its 
tributaries, without subjection to any discriminating toll, duty, 
or disability, is to be inserted. Provision should also be made 
for quieting and confirming the titles of all persons having 
claims to lands on either side of the line, whether such titles be 
perfect or inchoate only, and to the same extent in which they 
would have been confirmed by their respective governments 
had no change taken place. What has been agreed to, also, 
in respect to the common use of certain passages in the rivers 
and lakes, as already stated, must be made matter of regular 
stipulation. 

Your lordship is also informed, by the correspondence which 
formerly took place between the two governments, that there 
is a fund arising from the sale of timber, concerning which 



62 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

fund an understanding was had some years ago. It will be ex- 
pedient to provide, by the treaty, that this arrangement shall 
be carried into effect. 

A proper article will be necessary to provide for the creation 
of a commission to run and mark some parts of the line be- 
tween Maine and the British provinces. 

These several objects appear to me to embrace all respect- 
ing the boundary line, and its equivalents, which the treaty 
needs to contain as matters of stipulation between the United 
States and England. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, your lord- 
ship's most obedient servant, Daniel Webster. 

Lord Ashburton, &c, &c, &c. 

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 29, 1842. 

Sir, — I have attentively considered the statements contained 
in the letter you did me the honor of addressing me on the 27th 
of this month, of the terms agreed to for the settlement of 
boundaries between her majesty's provinces and the United 
States, being the final result of the many conferences we have 
had on this subject. This settlement appears substantially cor- 
rect in all its parts, and we may now proceed, without further 
delay, to draw up the treaty. Several of the articles for this 
purpose are already prepared and agreed, and our most con- 
venient course will be to take and consider them singly. I 
would beg leave to recommend that, as we have excellent 
charts of the country through which the boundary which failed 
of being settled by the commissioners under the seventh arti- 
cle of the Treaty of Ghent is partially marked, it would be 
advisable to make good the delineation on those charts, which 
would spare to both parties the unnecessary expense of new 
commissioners and a new survey. In this case, the only com- 
mission required would be to run the line on the boundary of 
Maine. 

The stipulations for the greater facility of the navigation of 
the River St. Lawrence, and of two passages between the Up- 
per Lakes, appear evidently desirable for general accommoda- 
tion ; and I can not refuse the reciprocal claim made by you to 
render common the passage from Lake Erie into the Detroit 
River. This must be done by declaring the several passages 
in those parts free to both parties. 

I should remark, also, that the free use of the navigation of 
the Long Sault passage on the St. Lawrence must be extended 
to below Barnhart's Island, for the purpose of clearing those 
rapids. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. G3 

I beg leave to repeat to you, sir, the assurances of my most 
distinguished consideration. Ashburton. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, &c, &c, &c. 

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, August 9, 1842. 

Sir, — It appears desirable that some explanation between us 
should be recorded by correspondence respecting the fifth ar- 
ticle of the treaty signed by us this day for the settlement of 
boundaries between Great Britain and the United States. 

By that article of the treaty it is stipulated that certain pay- 
ments shall be made by the government of the United Sates to 
the states of Maine and Massachusetts. It has, of course, been 
understood that my negotiations have been with the govern- 
ment of the United States, and the introduction of terms of 
agreement between the general government and the states 
would have been irregular and inadmissible, if it had not been 
deemed expedient to bring the whole of these transactions 
within the purview of the treaty. There may not be wanting 
analogous cases to justify this proceeding; but it seems proper 
that I should have confirmed by you that my government in- 
curs no responsibility for these engagements, of the precise 
nature and object of which I am uninformed, nor have I con- 
sidered it necessary to make inquiry concerning them. 

I beg, sir, to renew to you the assurances of my high con- 
sideration. ' Ashburton. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, &c, &c, &c. 

Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 

Department of State, Washington, August 9, 1842. 

My Lord, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of 
your note of the 9th of August with respect to the object and 
intention of the fifth article of the treaty. What you say in re- 
gard to that subject is quite correct. It purports to contain no 
stipulation on the part of Great Britain, nor is any responsibili- 
ty supposed to be incurred by it on the part of your government. 

I renew, my lord, the assurances of my distinguished con- 
sideration. Daniel Webster. 

Lord Ashburton, &c., &c, &c. 

Captain Talcott to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 14, 1842. 

Sir, — The territory within the lines mentioned by you con- 
tains eight hundred and ninety-three square miles, equal iofive 
hundred and seventy-one thousand jive hundred and twenty acres. 
It is a long and narrow tract upon the mountains or highlands, 



64 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

the distance from Lake Pohenagamook to the Metjarmette Port- 
age being one hundred and ten miles. The territory is barren, 
and without timber of value, and I should estimate that nine- 
teen parts out of twenty are unfit for cultivation. Along eighty 
miles of this territory the highlands throw up into irregular em- 
inences of different heights, and, though observing a general 
northeast and southwest direction, are not brought well into 
line. Some of the elevations are over three thousand feet 
above the sea. 

The formation is primitive silicious rock, with slate resting 
upon it, around the basis. Between the eminences are morass- 
es and swamps, throughout which beds of moss of luxuriant 
growth rest on and cover the rocks and earth beneath. The 
growth is such as is usual in mountain regions on this Conti- 
nent in high latitudes. On some of the ridges and eminences 
birch and maple are found ; on others, spruce and fir ; and in 
the swamps, spruce intermixed with cedar; but the wood every 
where is insignificant, and of stinted growth. It will readily 
be seen, therefore, that for cultivation, or as capable of furnish- 
ing the means of human subsistence, the lands are of no value. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

A. Talcott, Commissioner. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 

The New Hampshire Delegation in Congress to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 15, 1842. 

Sir, — The undersigned, composing the delegation of the State 
of New Hampshire in both Houses of Congress, have received 
a copy of a resolution passed by the Legislature of New Hamp- 
shire in respect to a portion of the territory of the state which 
is claimed by Great Britain. 

The resolution is as follows : 

" State of New Hampshire : In the year of our Lord one thousand eight hund- 
red and forty-two. 

" Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in Gen- 
eral Court convened, That his excellency the governor request 
our senators and representatives in Congress to take such meas- 
ures as may be necessary, during the pending negotiations at 
Washington, relative to the northern and northeastern boundary 
of the United States, to best sustain the rights of this state to the 
territory over which we have always heretofore claimed and 
exercised jurisdiction ; and that such papers, documents, and 
information be transmitted to them by his excellency as may 
aid in carrying into effect the object of this resolution." 

The undersigned beg leave to represent that the right of the 
state to the territory in controversy is, as they believe, incon- 
trovertible ; and, before any arrangement shall be made which 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 65 

looks to any relinquishment of that right in any degree, it is 
their wish, on behalf of the state, to present such documents 
and facts as tend to show the impropriety of such a course. 
With great respect, 

Levi Woodbury, j >Sfen ^ ors . 

Leonard Wilcox, ) 

Chas. G. Atherton,^ 

Edmund Burke, [ Memhers ofthe House 

Tristram Shaw, S of Repr hentative8. 

Ira A. Lastman, j 1 

John R. Reding, j 

To the President of the United States. 

Mr. Webster to the New Hampshire Delegation in Congress. 

Department of State, Washington, July 18, 1842. 

Gentlemen, — The President ofthe United States has trans- 
mitted to this department a letter dated the 15th instant, from 
the delegation of the state of New Hampshire in both Houses 
of Congress, communicating a copy of a resolution passed by 
the Legislature of that state respecting a portion of her terri- 
tory which is claimed by Great Britain, and intimating that, 
pending the present negotiations at Washington relative to 
the northern and northeastern boundary of the United States, 
and before any arrangement shall be made for a relinquishment 
ofthe right of the state to the territory referred to, it is the wish 
of the delegation to present such documents and facts as tend 
to show the impropriety of such a course. 

The Secretary of State would be very happy to receive from 
the delegation of New Hampshire a statement of what they con- 
sider the extent of territory to which the resolution ofthe State 
Legislature is supposed to refer ; and also any such documents 
or proofs of any such facts as they may think it important to 
lay before the government of the United States. 

I have the honor, &c, 

Daniel Webster. 
The New Hampshire Delegation in Congress. 

The New Hatnpshire Delegation in Congress to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 19, 1842. 

The undersigned have received a letter from the Secretary 
of State, dated the 18th instant, in reply to a communication 
dated the 15th instant, which the undersigned had the honor to 
address to the President ofthe United States, communicating a 
resolution passed by the Legislature ofthe State of New Hamp- 
shire respecting a portion of the territory of that state claimed 
by Great Britain. 

The Secretary of State having expressed a desire to receive 

E 



66 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

from the delegation of the State of New Hampshire "a state- 
ment of what they consider the extent of territory to which the 
resolution of the State Legislature is supposed to refer, and also 
any such documents or proofs of any such facts as they may 
think it important to lay before the government of the United 
States," the undersigned beg leave to refer to the following 
documents and papers, among others, as furnishing a full state- 
ment of the claims and rights of the State of New Hampshire 
to the territory in dispute, and as also defining its boundaries. 

1. The argument of the Hon. William C. Bradley, furnished 
the commissioners under the 5th article of the treaty of Ghent. 

2. The statement of the Hon. Albert Gallatin, prepared for 
the King of the Netherlands. 

3. An historical sketch of the northern boundary of New 
Hampshire, published in the 2d volume of the Collections of 
the Historical Society of New Hampshire, page 267. 

4. A report of commissioners of the State of New Hamp- 
shire, dated November 23, 1836, which is to be found accom- 
panying the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 
House of Representatives, 25th Congress, 3d session, report 
No. 176 — No. 6 of the accompanying documents. 

The undersigned are expecting to receive further documents 
upon the subject from his Excellency the Governor of New 
Hampshire, which, when received, they will transmit to the 
Secretary of State. 

We have the honor to be your obedient servants, 

Levi Woodbury, ) Senators of New Hamp- 
L. Wilcox, ) shire. 

Ira A. Eastman,^ 

Edmund Burke, {Representatives of the State 
John R. Reding, j of New Hampshire. 
Tristram Shaw, J 
Hon. Daniel Webster. 

P.S. — We transmit herewith the report of commissioners 
above alluded to, and also the second volume of Historical 
Collections. You will oblige us by returning the latter when 
you may have no further use for it. 

The other documents are on file in the State Department. 

Mr. Stuart to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 7, 1842. 

g IRj — In answer to the inquiries which you were pleased to 
make of me yesterday, I would remark, that Sugar Island, sit- 
uate in the River Ste. Marie, a short distance below Fort Bra- 
dy, is, as to soil, very excellent, and it abounds in the finest 
(sugar) maple-trees to be found any where ; the inhabitants of 
our side of the Sault Ste. Marie derive a handsome revenue 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. G7 

from the sugar and sirup which they annually make on this isl- 
and. It would be a great disappointment to the people of that 
region to lose it ; besides, is the faith of the nation not pledged 
for its preservation by the treaty held with the Chippewas in 
1826, which provided for half-breed reservations on this island? 
It is, in my opinion, of very great importance that the right of 
passage be secured for American vessels between the Island of 
Bois Blanc, in the River Detroit (opposite Fort Maiden), and 
the British shore ; the channel is only 200 to 300 yards wide, 
and is entirely commanded both by the island and Fort Mai- 
den. At present there is no other passage for our larger class 
of vessels, steam-boats, &c. ; and it will require much time and 
expense to render the old passage south of Grose Isle availa- 
ble. In short, the right of using the British Channel is, in my 
opinion, absolutely necessary. 

I am respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, 

Robert Stuart. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 

Mr. Delajield to Mr. Fraser. 

New York, July 20, 1842. 

Dear Sir, — I have looked over the letter of Mr. F. Webster 
to you, as you desired, and perceive that it is some "particular 
topographical information," more especially, that the secretary 
desires concerning the country between Lake Superior and the 
Lake of the Woods. That district was thoroughly explored 
by Messrs. Ferguson and Whistler, the surveyors of our party, 
and by myself, as the United States agent. 

We all proceeded inland, by the Grand Portage route, to the 
Lake of the Woods. I had previously obtained much informa- 
tion to prove that there was a more northern route by a well- 
known Long Lake, and the only lake known by that name, some 
distance north of the Grand Portage route ; and as it became 
my duty to claim that as the true route (having discovered, 
too, that the British commissioners intended to claim by the 
Fond du Lac route), I returned by that northern route to Lake 
Superior, accompanied by Mr. Whistler; we, consequently, saw 
more of the country than any others of the party. 

As you are aware, my claim to the northern route was sus- 
| tained by the American commissioners, and became a subject 
of final disagreement. 

The only other difference was in relation to the claim I made 
to St. George's Island, in the River St. Mary, which was also 
sanctioned by General Porter, the American commissioner, and 
is a good claim, I think, by all the evidence in the case. 

As to the topographical information, some can be had by ref- 
erence to the maps and discussions which were deposited by 



68 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

me in the State Department, July 24, 1824. Beside the jour- 
nal of the commissioners, I also deposited the journal of the 
agent, more in detail, containing all the claims and discussions, 
&c, at length. 

The face of the country is mountainous, rockv, and barren 
for nearly the whole distance in question. Throughout my 

Surneys, I may say, I saw but little except rock and water. 
y route was necessarily confined to the water-courses ; but, 
whenever I ascended a height, it was the same dreary prospect 
in all directions, every valley between such heights being a lit- 
tle lake or the discharge of a water-course. 

As an agricultural district it has no value or interest, even 
prospectively, in my opinion. If the climate were suitable, 
which it is not, I can only say that I never saw, in my explora- 
tions there, tillable land enough to sustain any permanent pop- 
ulation sufficiently numerous to justify other settlements than 
those of the fur traders, and, I might add, fishermen. The fur 
traders there occupied nearly all those places; and the opinion 
4 now expressed is the only one I ever heard entertained by those 
most experienced in these northwestern regions. 

There is, nevertheless, much interest felt by the fur traders 
on this subject of boundary. To them it is of much import- 
ance, as they conceive ; and it is, in fact, of national import- 
ance. Had the British commissioner consented to proceed by 
the Pigeon River, which is the Long Lake of Mitchell's Map, 
it is probable there would have been an agreement. There 
were several reasons for his pertinacity, and for this disagree- 
ment, which belong, however, to the private history of the 
commission, and can be stated when required. The Pigeon 
River is a continuous water-course. The St. George's Island, 
in the St. Mary's River, is a valuable island, and worth as much, 
perhaps, as most of the country between the Pigeon River and 
Dog River route, claimed for the United States, in an agri- 
cultural sense. 

Mr. Ferguson is, I believe, in the neighborhood of Wilming- 
ton, Delaware. He can give the desired topographical inform- 
ation. I have a complete and daily journal, descriptive of the 
country passed over, but have no time to refer to it this even- 
ing. It would confirm my general remarks, however. 

I am now on the eve of departure with my family for Suf- 
folk county, Long Island. Be pleased to say to Mr. Webster, 
that any and all the information or assistance I can give is at 
his command, but that, if possible, I hope it may be by corre- 
spondence rather than a personal visit, as my engagements 
here just now are such as to make a jaunt to Washington rath- 
er inconvenient. Should topographical information only be 
desired, and the present is not satisfactory, I would refer the 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 69 

secretary to Mr. Ferguson, and would myself refer to my jour- 
nal. I shall be absent from the city until the 4th of August. 
Until, say August 1st, my address will be at " Quoque, Suffolk 
county, Long Island." You are quite at liberty to show these 
hasty remarks to Mr. Webster ; in short, it is better to do so 
than to repeat them, and I would prefer it. 

Yours truly, Jos. Delafield. 

Major D. Frazer. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Ferguson. 

Department of State, Washington, July 25, 1842. 

Sir, — Having been astronomer and surveyor to the commis- 
sioners under the seventh article of the Treaty of Ghent, and 
having, as I understand, explored the country personally and 
thoroughly from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods, I 
will be obliged to you to give me information in respect to two 
or three subjects of inquiry. 

In the first place, be kind enough to describe the Pigeon 
River, its estuary or bay at its mouth, its size, and the nature 
of its channel and current in the last five or ten miles of its 
course. Be pleased to say whether the estuary of this river, 
and its position and bearing in relation to Isle Royal, may 
naturally lead to the conclusion that it is the Long Lake spoken 
of in the treaty of 1783. 

What is the general nature of the country between the 
mouth of Pigeon River and the Rainy Lake ? Of what forma- 
tion is it, and how is its surface ? and will any considerable 
portion of its area be fit for cultivation 1 Are its waters active 
and running streams, as in other parts of the United States, or 
are they dead lakes, swamps, and morasses ? If the latter be 
their general character, at what point, as you proceed west- 
ward, do the waters receive a more decided character as run- 
ning streams ? 

There are said to be two lines of communication, each partly 
by water and partly by portages, from the neighborhood of 
Pigeon River to the Rainy Lake ; one by the way of Fowl 
Lakes, the Saganaga Lake, and the Cypress Lake ; the other 
by way of Arrow River and Lake, then by way of Saganaga 
Lake and through the River Maligne, meeting the other route 
at Lake la Croix, and through the River Namekan to the Rainy 
Lake. Do you know any reason for attaching great preference 
to either of these two lines ? Or do you consider it of no im- 
portance, in any point of view, which may be agreed to ? 
Please be full and particular on these several points. 

Yours respectfully, 

Daniel Webster. 

James Ferguson, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware. 



70 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 



Mr, Ferguson to Mr. Webster. 

Washington. July 25, 1842. 

Sir, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
note of to-day, desiring to be informed of the character of the 
region northwestward of Lake Superior, which comprehends 
the several practiced and customary routes between that lake 
and the Lake of the Woods. 

In reply, I submit the following statement, which will give, 
as far as I am able, the desired information. 

At the mouth of the Pigeon River there is probably about 
three hundred yards in length of alluvial formation ? but the 
river above that, as far as to near Fort Charlotte, runs between 
steep, cut rocks of basaltic or primitive formation, and is a suc- 
cession of falls and rapids for nearly its whole length ; the last 
cataract, which is within about a mile of its mouth, being al- 
most one hundred feet in height. You will, perhaps, understand 
the formation of the country better when I mention that nearly 
the whole of the northern shore of Lake Superior consists of 
these sheer rocky escarpments, from six hundred to nine hund- 
red feet high, and that the sources of most of the rivers which 
have cut their channels into the lake lie within thirty or forty 
miles of its verge. 

There is really not much difference in elevation between 
South Fowl Lake and the lakes of the height of land. The 
character I have given of Pigeon River will serve also for the 
Arrow River, excepting that the latter has a reach of about two 
miles of still water. 

I have no doubt that the bay of the Pigeon River is the 
Long Lake of the treaty of 1783. It is designated by the name 
on Mitchell's Map, which at that time was the only map ex- 
. -;ing of these regions, and was proven, by the evidence of Mr. 
John Adams and Mr. John Jay, to have been the only geo- 

aphical description before the negotiators of the first treaty, 
i'aough evidently defective and erroneous, it is but fair to take 
it as an evidence of the intention. In addition to this evidence 
of the construction of the treaty oi 17S3. at the time it was 
concluded, we have this fact further : that, immediately after 
the peace, the traders of the Northwest Fur Company destroyed 
their forts and warehouses at the Grand Portage, and removed 
themselves to Furt William, ten leagues on the other side of 
the Pigeon River : a course which could only have been adopt- 
ed for the reason that they supposed their previous location 
would now be on foreign territory. In addition. I have never 
heard this construction of the treaty of 1753 questioned bv anv 
of the partners of the British Fur Company whom I have met 
in that quarter. 

To your query as to the character of the country between 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 71 

the mouth of the Pigeon River and the Rainy Lake, it is more 
difficult to give a distinct answer than to any ot the others. 
The rivers here are all rapid ; those running toward Lake 
Superior are of small size. The Pigeon River and Arrow 
River vary in width from sixty to two hundred feet. and. as I 
have said previously, are almost a continued rapid. 

But the rivers running northward : the outlet of Lake Saisa- 
srine^au. the River Maligne. the River Xamecan. and the Rainv 
River are all bold and strong rivers, and of much greater 
width and volume, carrying with them, through gentler slopes, 
the drainage of a more extended surface. On the plateau 
which makes the height of land, and which I would define as 
lying between the Fowl Lake and Lake Namecan, lie a group 
of lakes connecting nearly with each other, having their sorties 
sometimes toward the Arrow and Pigeon Rivers, sometimes 
toward the St. Louis, sometimes toward the Kamanistiquia and 
the country of the Nipigon, and sometimes toward Hudson's 
Bay. In examining, therefore, the geography of this country, 
it is necessary to remember that the rivers and lakes indicated 
on the maps are only those at present explored, and that there 
exist other routes and other connections known only to the 
natives, and which the impracticable nature of the country has 
hitherto prevented from coming to the knowledge of the fur 
traders, who are doubtless the persons most interested in the 
capabilities of the country. 

As an agricultural district, this region will always be value- 
less. The pine timber is of high growth, equal for spars, per- 
haps, to the Norway pine, and may in time find a market ; 
but there are no alluvions, no arable lands, and the whole 
country may be described as one waste of rock and water. 

From the outlet of the Rainy Lake the country changes its 
appearance ; the valleys of the rivers are wider, the timber of 
more varied and luxuriant growth, and the country capable of 
cultivation. 

You have desired me, also, to express an opinion as to any 
preference which I may know to exist between the several 
lines claimed as boundaries through this country between the 
United States and Great Britain. 

Considering that Great Britain abandons her claim by the 
Fond du Lac and the St. Louis River, cedes also Sugar Island, 
otherwise called St. George's Island, in the Ste. Marie River, 
and agrees, generally, to a boundary following the old com- 
mercial route, commencing at the Pigeon River, I do not think 
that any reasonable ground exists to a final determination ot 
this part of the boundary. I have the honor to be, very re- 
spectfully, your obedient servant, J. Ferguson. 

Hon. Damel Webster, Secretary of State of the United Stoics. 



72 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

Captain Talcott to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 25, 1842. 

Sir, — The extent of boundary line separating the United 
States and territory belonging thereto from the British posses- 
sions, and lying between the monument of the St. Croix and 
the Stony Mountains, is estimated as follows for each adjacent 
state : 

Maine (line as awarded by the King of Holland) 460 miles. 
New Hampshire - - - 40 " 

Vermont - - - - 90 " 

New York 420 " 

Pennsylvania - . - - 30 " 

Ohio - - . - 200 " 

Michigan - - 740 " 

Territory west of Lake Superior - - 1150 " 

Total length of boundary line - 3130 " 

Respectfully submitted by your obedient servant, 

A. Talcott. 

Hon. Secretary of State. 



SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. 

Mr. Webster to Captains Bell and Paine. 

Department of State, Washington, April 30, 1842. 

Gentlemen, — Your experience in the service on the coast 
of Africa has probably enabled you to give information to the 
government on some points connected with the slave trade on 
that coast, in respect to which it is desirable that the most ac- 
curate knowledge attainable should be possessed. These par- 
ticulars are, 

1. The extent of the western coast of Africa along which 
the slave trade is supposed to be carried on, with the rivers, 
creeks, inlets, bays, harbors, or parts of the coast to which it is 
understood slave ships most frequently resort. 

2. The space or belt along the shore within which cruisers 
may be usefully employed for the purpose of detecting vessels 
engaged in the traffic. 

3. The general course of proceeding of a slave ship after 
leaving Brazil or the West Indies on a voyage to the coast of 
Africa for slaves, including her manner of approach to the 
shore, her previous bargain or arrangement for the purchase 
of slaves, the time of her usual stay on or near the coast, and 
the means by which she has communication with persons on 
land. 

4. The nature of the stations, or barracoons, in which slaves 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 73 

are collected on shore to be sold to the traders, whether usually 
in rivers, creeks, or inlets, or on or near the open shore. 

5. The usual articles of equipment and preparation, and the 
manner of fitting up, by which a vessel is known to be a slaver, 
though not caught with slaves on board. 

6. The utility of employing vessels of different nations to 
cruise together, so that one or the other might have a right to 
visit and search every vessel which might be met with under 
suspicious circumstances, either as belonging to the country 
of the vessel visiting and searching, or to some other country 
which has, by treaty, conceded such right of visitation and 
search. 

7. To what places slaves from slave ships could be most con- 
veniently taken. 

8. Finally, what number of vessels, and of what size and de- 
scription, it would be necessary to employ on the western coast 
of Africa, in order to put an entire end to the traffic in slaves, 
and for what number of years it would probably be necessary 
to maintain such force to accomplish that purpose ? 

You will please to add such observations as the state of your 
knowledge may allow relative to the slave trade on the eastern 
coast of Africa. 

I have the honor to be, &c, 

Daniel Webster. 

Captains Bell and Paine, United States Navy. 

Mr. Paine to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, May 2, 1842. 

Sir, — The agreement between Commander William Tucker, 
of the British navy, and myself is so connected with numerous 
instructions respecting proceedings on the coast of Africa, that 
I should furnish a copy of all if the object were to justify my- 
self; but as the wish of the State Department seems to be to 
ascertain the nature of the agreement itself, and the action of 
myself thereon ; and as I wish to forward this view promptly, 
I shall restrict myself to these points, commencing with the 
agreement, of which the following is a copy : 

" Commander William Tucker, of her Britannic majesty's 
sloop Wolverine, and senior officer on the west coast of Africa, 
and Lieutenant John S. Paine, commanding the United States 
schooner Grampus, in order to carry into execution, as far as 
possible, the orders and views of their respective governments 
respecting the suppression of the slave trade, hereby request 
each other, and agree to detain all vessels under American 
colors found to be fully equipped for and engaged in the slave 
trade ; that, if proved to be American property, they shall be 
handed over to the United States schooner Grampus, or any 



74 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

other American cruiser; and that, if proved to be Spanish, 
Portuguese, Brazilian, or English property, to any of her Britan- 
nic majesty's cruisers employed on the west coast of Africa for 
the suppression of the slave trade, so far as their respective 
laws and treaties will permit. 

"Signed and exchanged at Sierra Leone, this 11th day of 
March, 1840. 

"John S. Paine, 
" Commanding the U. S. Schooner Grampus. 
" William Tucker, 
" Commanding H. B. M. Sloop Wolverine, and Senior- 
Officer of West Coast of Africa." 

The objects of this agreement were, mainly, 

1st. To meet the very common case with slavers, that of 
having on board two sets of papers. 

2d. To let it be known that there subsisted between the 
British and American force a good understanding, and a dis- 
position to co-operate for the purpose indicated, as far as pos- 
sible, without violating existing treaties. 

A copy was forwarded by me to the Navy Department, to 
which I received the following reply : 

" Navy Department, June 4, 1840. 

" Sir, — Your letter of the 23d of March last, with its incis- 
ures, has been received. 

"The instructions given you for your government when you 
left the United States, while they indicated a friendly co-opera- 
tion with the commanders of the British cruisers in the sup- 
pression of the slave trade on the coast of Africa, as likely to 
aid in detecting the frauds resorted to by those engaged in it 
for the purpose of avoiding discovery and escaping punish- 
ment, were not intended to authorize any such arrangement as 
that which, it appears, you have made with the commander of 
her Britannic majesty's sloop Wolverine, and by which you 
delegated to that officer the right to seize vessels under Ameri- 
can colors, and, under certain circumstances, to detain them, 
with the view of turning them over to the Grampus, or other 
United States cruiser. 

" Such a delegation of power is not only unauthorized by 
your instructions, but contrary to the established and well- 
known principles and policy of your government, and is, there- 
fore, not sanctioned by the department. 

"You will make known the views of the department on this 
subject to the commander of the Wolverine, and inform him 
that the arrangement made with him, having been disapproved 
of by your government, can not, on your part, be complied 
with. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 75 

" The great object of the co-operation being to obviate the 
difficulties of capture, growing out of the practice adopted by 
slavers of assuming Portuguese, English, Spanish, or Brazilian 
colors when overhauled by an American, or American colors 
when overhauled by a British cruiser ; for this purpose, you 
are authorized to cruise in company and in co-operation with 
any British vessel of war employed on the slave coast in the 
pursuit of objects similar to your own. 

" I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

" J. K. Paulding. 

" Lieutenant John S. Paine, commanding U. S. Schooner \ 
Grampus, Sierra Leone, Coast of Africa." ) 

In compliance with this, I addressed Capt. Tucker as follows : 

"U. S. Schooner Grampus, April 27, 1841. 

" Sir, — I am directed to make known to you the views of 
my government respecting the agreement signed and ex- 
changed with you on the 1 1th of March, 1840, at Sierra Leone. 

" The Secretary of the Navy says : ' Inform him that the ar- 
rangement made with him, having been disapproved by your 
government, can not, on your part, be complied with. The 
great object of the co-operation being to obviate the difficulties 
of capture, growing out of the practice adopted by slavers of 
assuming Portuguese, English, Spanish, or Brazilian colors 
when overhauled by an American, or American colors when 
overhauled by a British cruiser ; for this purpose, you are au- 
thorized to cruise in company and in co-operation with any 
British vessel of war employed on the slave coast in pursuit of 
objects similar to your own.' 

" From the above extract you will perceive that the Secre- 
tary of the Navy at Washington is careful to avoid giving 
countenance to the practice of detaining American vessels, even 
though they be slavers, unless by American vessels of war. 

'• The best, if not the only, means of co-operation left, would 
seem to be, exchanging information, or cruising in company. 

"If any thing can be effected by this vessel within such limits 
while on"the coast, it will be gratifying to me to aid you, or any 
of her majesty's officers, in forwarding so desirable an object. 

" I am, with very high respect, sir, your obedient servant, 
" John S. Paine, Lieutenant commanding. 

" Captain William Tucker, commanding H.B.M. Sloop Wolverine, and i 
Senior Officer of H. B. M. Naval Forces on the Coast of Africa." S 

Hoping to meet Captain Tucker, I did not dispatch the let- 
ter ; but, finally, finding that his successor had arrived, I ad- 
dressed to him the following : 

[extract.] 

" U. S. Schooner Grampus, Sierra Leone, June 17, 1841. 

"While cruising here last year, I had made an arrangement 



76 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

with Commander William Tucker of a similar character to that 
recommended ; which, however, was not approved by the Sec- 
retary of the Navy ; and, as I have not fallen in with Captain 
Tucker since the receipt of a communication from Washington 
on the subject, I have deemed it proper to inclose to you a let- 
ter to Captain Tucker, with a copy of the agreement referred 
to therein. 

" In conclusion, I tender to you my sincere wishes for your 
success in the prosecution of duties so interesting to the cause 
of humanity. 

" I am, with the highest respect, sir, your obedient servant, 
" John S. Paine, Lieutenant commanding. 

"Captain , commanding H. B. M. Ship Isis, and 1 

Senior Officer on the Western Coast of Africa." $ 

Any expression of my opinion of Mr. Paulding's letter to me 
would have been improper, and would still be indecorous. I 
shall be grateful to be informed if you think any explanation 
or defense necessary. I have never believed so. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest respect, sir, your 
obedient servant, John S. Paine, 

Commander United States Navy. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of Stale. 

Commanders Bell and Paine to the Secretary of State. 

Washington City, May 10, 1842. 

Sir, — In accordance with the wishes expressed in your com- 
munication of the 30th ultimo, we have the honor to submit the 
following statement : 

In reply to the first particular, viz., ''The extent of the west- 
ern coast of Africa, along which the slave trade is supposed 
to be carried on, with the rivers, creeks, inlets, bays, harbors, 
or ports of the coast to which it is understood slave ships most 
frequently resort." 

The slave trade from Western Africa to America is carried 
on wholly between Senegal, latitude 16 deg. north, longitude 
16| deg. west, and Cape Frio, in latitude 18 deg. south, longi- 
tude 12 deg. east, a space (following the windings of the coast 
at the distance of three or four miles) of more than 3600 miles. 
There are scattered along the coast five English, four French, 
five American, six Portuguese, six or eight Dutch, and four or 
five Danish settlements, besides many which have been aban- 
doned by their respective governments. 

These settlements are generally isolated ; many of them 
only a fortress without any town, while a few are a cluster of 
villages and farms. 

The British, French, and particularly the American settle- 
ments, exercise an important influence in suppressing the slave 
trade. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 77 

The influence of the Danes and Dutch is not material. 
The Portuguese influence is supposed to favor the continu- 
ance of the trade, except the counter influence of the British, 
through treaty stipulations. 

North of the Portuguese cluster of settlements, of which 
Bissao is the capital, and south of Benguela (also Portuguese), 
there is believed to be no probability of a revival of the slave 
trade to any extent. 

This leaves about 3000 miles of coast, to which the trade 
(principally with Cuba, Porto Rico, and Brazil) is limited. 

There are hundreds of trading places on the coast calling 
themselves "factories," and each claiming the protection of 
some civilized power. Some of these were the sites of aban- 
doned colonies ; others have been established by trading com- 
panies or individuals. 

The actual jurisdiction of a tribe on the coast seldom ex- 
ceeds ten miles, though these small tribes are sometimes more 
or less perfectly associated for a greater distance. 

Of these factories and tribes a few have never been directly 
engaged in the slave trade, and are opposed to it, but the great 
preponderance is of the slave-trading interest. 

To enumerate the rivers and inlets of this coast would not 
convey a just idea of the slave country or practices, as the em- 
barkation often takes place from the beach where there is no 
inlet ; but we will state a few of the most noted. 

Commencing at Cape Roxo, in latitude 12 deg. 30 min. north, 
and running down the coast as far as the River Mellacoree, in 
latitude 9 deg. north, the slave trade is more or less carried on, 
but (in consequence of the vigilance of cruisers) not to the 
same extent that it was a few years ago. 

Another portion of the coast, from the limits of the Sierra 
Leone colony to Cape Mount (a space including the mouths of 
six or more rivers), the slave trade is extensively prosecuted. 
Here commences the jurisdiction of the American Colonization 
Society, which extends to Grand Bassa. There are several 
slave stations between Grand Bassa and Cape Palmas. Thence 
eastwardly to Cape Coast Castle, situated near the meridian 
of Greenwich, we believe there are no slave stations; but east- 
ward of this, and in the bights of Benin and Biafra, along the 
whole coast (which includes the mouths of the great rivers 
Benin, Formosa, Nun, Old and New Calabar, Bonny, Cameron's, 
Gaboon, and Congo), with few exceptions, down to Benguela, 
in latitude 13 deg. south, the slave trade is carried on to a very 
great extent. 

"2d. The space or belt along the shore, within which cruisers 
may be usefully employed for the purpose of detecting vessels 
engaged in the traffic." 



78 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

Men-of-war should always cruise as near the shore as the 
safety of the vessel will admit, in order to take advantage of 
the land and sea breezes. Twenty or thirty miles from the 
coast there are continual calms, where vessels are subject to 
vexatious delays ; besides which, ships engaged in the slave 
trade keep close in with the land, in order to reach their places 
of destination. 

"3d. The general course of proceeding of a slave ship, after 
leaving Brazil or the West Indies, on a voyage to the coast of 
Africa for slaves, including her manner of approach to the 
shore, her previous bargain or arrangement for the purchase 
of slaves, the time of her usual stay on or near the coast, and 
the means by which she has communication with persons on 
land." 

Vessels bound from the coast of Brazil or the West Indies to 
the coast of Africa are obliged, in consequence of the trade 
winds, to run north as far as the latitude of thirty or thirty-five, 
to get into the variable winds ; thence to the eastward, until 
they reach the longitude of Cape Verd Islands ; then steer to 
the southward to their port of destination; and, if bound as far 
to the eastward as the Gulf of Guinea, usually make the land 
near Cape Mount or Cape Palmas. Vessels from Brazil bound 
to the southern part of the coast of Africa run south as far as 
the latitude of 35 deg. south, and make up their easting in the 
southern variables. 

Slave vessels are generally owned or chartered by those 
persons who have an interest in the slave establishments on the 
coast of Africa, where the slaves are collected and confined in 
barracoons, or slave prisons, ready for transhipment the mo- 
ment the vessel arrives. They are, therefore, detained but a 
short time after arriving at their place of destination. In- 
stances have come to our notice of vessels arriving at the slave 
station in the evening, landing their cargo, taking on board all 
their slaves, and sailing with the land breeze on the following 
morning. 

It is not unusual, however, for vessels unconnected with any 
particular slave establishment to make their purchases after 
arrival. If any delay is likely to occur, an agent is landed, and 
the vessel stands to sea, and remains absent for as long a time 
as may be thought necessary to complete their arrangements. 

The slavers communicate with the shore either with their 
own boats, or boats and canoes belonging to the Kroomen in 
the employment of those on shore. 

" 4th. The nature of the stations, or barracoons, in which 
slaves are collected on shore to be sold to the traders, whether 
usually on rivers, creeks, or inlets, or on or near the open 
shore." 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 79 

The slave stations are variously situated ; some near the 
mouth, others a considerable distance up the river, and many 
directly on the sea-shore. The barracoons are thatched build- 
ings, made sufficiently strong to secure the slaves, and enough 
of them to contain, in some instances, several thousands. The 
slaves are collected by the negro chiefs in the vicinity, and 
sold to the persons in charge of the stations, where they are 
kept confined until an opportunity offers to ship them off. Ma- 
terials of all kinds necessary to convert a common trader into 
a slave ship are kept on hand, and the change can be com- 
pleted in a few hours. A number of Kroomen are employed, 
and boats and canoes ready for immediate service. 

The slave stations are generally fortified with cannon and 
muskets, not only to guard against a rising of the slaves, but to 
protect them from sudden attacks of the natives in the vicinity, 
and to command their respect. 

"5th. The usual articles of equipment and preparation, and 
the manner of fitting up, by which a vessel is known to be a 
slaver, though not caught with slaves on board." 

Vessels engaged in the slave trade are either fitted up with 
a slave deck, or have the materials on board, prepared, to put 
one up in a few hours. Their hatches, instead of being close, 
as is usual in merchantmen, have gratings ; they are supplied 
with boilers sufficiently large to cook rice or farina for the 
number of slaves they expect to receive ; an extra number of 
water casks, many more than are sufficient for a common 
crew ; also a number of shackles to secure their slaves. Most 
of these articles, however, are concealed, and every thing is 
done to disguise the vessel. 

It is not unusual for them to have several sets of papers ; 
two or more persons representing themselves as captains or 
masters of the vessel, and flags of all nations. Every device 
is resorted to to deceive should they encounter a cruiser. 

Some are armed with only a few muskets ; others have a 
number of heavy guns, according to the size of the vessel ; 
and they range from sixty to four hundred tons burden, with 
crews from ten to upward of one hundred men. 

" 6th. The utility of employing vessels of different nations to 
cruise together, so that one or the other might have a right to 
visit and search every vessel which might be met with under 
suspicious circumstances, either as belonging to the country 
of the vessel visiting or searching, or to some other country 
which has, by treaty, conceded such right of visitation and 
search." 

We are of opinion that a squadron should be kept on the 
coast of Africa to co-operate with the British, or other nations 
interested in stopping the slave trade ; and that the most ef- 



80 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

ficient mode would be for vessels to cruise in couples, one of 
each nation. 

" 7th. To what places slaves taken from slave ships on the 
coast could be most conveniently taken." 

If captured under the American flag, send them to Cape 
Mesurada, Liberia, or, if convenient, to such other of the Ameri- 
can settlements as the agent of the United States there may 
wish. 

" 8th. Finally, what number of vessels, and of what size and 
description, it would be necessary to employ on the western 
coast of Africa in order to put an entire end to the traffic in 
slaves, and for what number of years it would probably be 
necessary to maintain such force to accomplish that purpose ;" 
adding " such observations as the state of your knowledge 
may allow relative to the slave trade on the eastern coast of 
Africa." 

As our personal knowledge of the coast extends to only that 
part of it comprised between Cape Verd and Cape Palmas, it 
is difficult to state the exact force required for this service. 
JNot less, however, than the following, we think necessary : 

One first class sloop-of-war. 

One steamer from 200 to 300 tons burden. 

Two (eight or ten gun) brigs or schooners. 

Ten schooners of about 100 tons, each with four guns. 

One store-ship of from 250 to 300 tons. 

All the vessels to have one tenth less than their complements 
of men ; to be filled up with Kroomen on their arrival on the 

coast. 

A steamer, to be fitted up, if possible, to burn either wood or 
coal, as circumstances require, will be essentially necessary. 

That part of the coast of Africa from which slaves are ex- 
ported is subject to light winds and calms. A steamer pro- 
pelled at the rate of six miles an hour could easily overtake the 
fastest sailing vessels, and would be a great auxiliary in ascend- 
ing rivers and towing boats in order to attack slave stations. 
Less duty is performed by sailing cruisers on this coast than 
on any other we are acquainted with, from the reasons just 
stated ; and the importance of steam-vessels is much increased 

by this difficulty. 

We can not state confidently how long such force would be 
necessary, but we are of opinion that in three years the trade 
would be so far destroyed as to enable the United States to 
withdraw a greater part, while a small force of observation 
would be necessary until the natives had become accustomed 
to other occupations and lost all hope of again engaging in the 

traffic. 

In connection with this subject we beg leave to remark, that 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 81 

the American fair trader is sometimes obstructed in the most 
vexatious manner by armed British merchantmen, sustained by 
British cruisers. This arises from the practice which exists 
with the commanders of single cruisers, the agents of trading 
companies, the masters of merchantmen, and others, making 
agreements, treaties, or, as the expression there is, " books," se- 
curing to themselves the exclusive trade with the tribe or dis- 
trict. A late instance of this unreasonable, and probably un- 
authorized, spirit of monopoly has come to our notice near Cape 
Mount, where the native chief was induced to believe that he 
could not make a treaty with the American colonists, because 
he had made one with the commander of a British cruiser. 

The same commander, it is asserted, has also threatened the 
governor of the colony at Monrovia that he will make reprisals 
on the commerce of the colony for exercising the usual juris- 
diction at Bassa Cove, only two or three miles from their town 
of Bassa and Edina. 

Our knowledge of the commanders of British cruisers au- 
thorizes us to say that their conduct is not usually thus un- 
friendly ; but many instances show the propriety of guarding 
the interests of the fair dealer, who is generally opposed to the 
slave trade. 

Respecting these treaties or agreements with the tribes, we 
think that only the commanders of squadrons or governors of 
colonies should be permitted to make them ; and with those 
over whom their governments can not reasonably claim juris- 
diction, treaties should not be made to the exclusion of other 
mercantile powers trading on the coast, as has sometimes been 
done ; and all treaties should contain a prohibition of the slave 
trade. Commanders of squadrons and governors of colonies 
should be authorized and directed to seize every opportunity, 
and make use of all honorable means, of inducing the native 
tribes, and particularly the Emperor of Ashantee, the empress 
or potentate at Loango, and odier powerful nations, to enter 
into agreements to put a stop, as far as their influence extends, 
to the traffic ; to seize and send home for trial all foreigners 
found on the coast engaged ir the slave trade, whether belong- 
ing to vessels or residing ou the coast (for should these per- 
sons be permitted to remain, even after their slave stations are 
destroyed, they will erect ethers at points probably less assail- 
able), and should be enjoined to extend their protection to fair 
traders, though not of the ; r own nation. 

Commanders of squadrons and governors should be directed 
to destroy all slave factories within the reach of the force em- 
ployed, and to proclaim to the tribes in the vicinity that they 
must not be renewed, on pain of having their villages also de- 
stroyed. 

F 



82 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

We have little knowledge of the details respecting the slave 
trade on the eastern coast of Africa. No instance has come to 
our knowledge of the use of the American flag there. From the 
best information we can obtain, it seems that a large trade is 
carried on by Portuguese colonies, the Arab chiefs, and negro 
tribes. Their greatest markets are the Mohammedan coun- 
tries, bordering on the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, the Portu- 
guese East India colonies, Bombay, and perhaps other British 
possessions in the East Indies ; this part of the trade is probably 
in the hands of the Arabian vessels. Many are also shipped 
to Brazil, and some, perhaps, find their way to Cuba and Porto 
Rico. 

In concluding this subject, we beg leave to remark, that the 
field of operations to carry on the slave trade is so extensive, 
the profits so great, and the obstacles in the path so many, so 
various, so difficult, that every means should be used by civil- 
ized nations, and particularly by the United States and Great 
Britain, to effect the object ; and we do not believe that any 
material good can result without an earnest and cordial co- 
operation. We have the honor to be, with high respect, your 
obedient servants, 

Charles H. Bell, ) ^ , TT Ar 

T q n \ Commanders U. o. IS'avy. 

John S. jtaine, ) * 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, August 9, 1842. 

Sir, — By the 3d article of the convention which I have this 
day signed with you, there is an agreement for the reciprocal 
delivery, in certain cases, of criminals fugitive from justice ; 
but it becomes necessary that I should apprise you that this 
article can have no legal effect within the dominions of Great 
Britain until confirmed by act of Parliament. It is possible 
that Parliament may not be in session before the exchange of 
the ratifications of the conven'.ion, but its sanction shall be 
asked at the earliest possible period, and no doubt can be en- 
tertained that it will be given, in her majesty's territories in 
Canada, where cases for acting under this convention are likely 
to be of more frequent occurrence, the governor general has 
sufficient power, under the authority of local legislation, and 
the convention will there be acted i,pon so soon as its ratifica- 
tion shall be known ; but it becomes my duty to inform you of 
the short delay which may possibly intervene in giving full 
effect to it where the confirmation by Parliament becomes 
necessary for its execution. I beg, sir, to renew to you the 

assurance of my high consideration. Ashburton. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, &c, &c., &c. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 83 

CORRESPONDENCE WITH LORD ASHBURTON. 

MARITIME RIGHTS. 

CASE OF THE " CREOLE." 
Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburion. 

Department of State. Washington, August 1, 1842. 

My Lord, — The President has learned with much regret that 
you are not empowered by your government to enter into a 
formal stipulation for the better security of vessels of the United 
States when meeting with disasters in passing between the 
United States and the Bahama Islands, and driven by such 
disasters into British ports. This is a subject which is deemed 
to be of great importance, and which can not, on the present 
occasion, be overlooked. 

Your lordship is aware that several cases have occurred 
within the last few years which have caused much complaint. 
In some of these cases compensation has been made by the 
English government for the interference of the local authorities 
with American vessels having slaves on board, by which in- 
terference these slaves were set free. In other cases, such 
compensation has been refused. It appears to the President 
to be for the interest of both countries that the recurrence of 
similar cases in future should be prevented as far as possible. 

Your lordship has been acquainted with the case of the 
" Creole," a vessel carried into the port of Nassau last winter 
by persons who had risen upon the lawful authority of the 
vessel, and, in the accomplishment of their purpose, had com- 
mitted murder on a person on board. 

The opinions which that occurrence gave occasion for this 
government to express, in regard to the rights and duties of 
friendly and civilized maritime states, placed by Providence 
near to each other, were well considered, and are entertained 
with entire confidence. The facts in the particular case of the 
" Creole " are controverted : positive and officious interference 
by the colonial authorities to set the slaves free being alleged 
on the one side and denied on the other. 

It is not my present purpose to discuss this difference of 
opinion as to the evidence in the case, as it at present exists, 
because the rights <?{ individuals having rendered necessary 
a more thorough and a judicial investigation of facts and cir- 
cumstances attending the transaction, such investigation is un- 
derstood to be now in progress, and its result, when known, 
will render me more able than at this moment to present to the 
British government a full and accurate view of the whole case 



84 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

But it is my purpose and my duty to invite your lordship's 
attention to \hl general subject, and your serious consideration 
of some practical means of giving security to the coasting trade 
o the United States against unlawful annoyance and inte nup- 
tion aloncr this part of their shore. The Bahama Islands ap- 
Zch tfe coasfof Florida within a lew leagues and wU the 
coast form a long and narrow channel, filled with innumerable 
rail islands an! banks of sand, and the navigation difficul 
and dangerous, not only on these accounts, but from the mo 
lence of the winds and the variable nature of the currents 
A ccident ; are.of course, frequent, and necessity often co mpel 
vessels of the United States, in attempting to double Cape 
Florida, to seek shelter in the ports of these islands Along 
this passage the Atlantic states hold Jj 40 ^™^^,^ 
on the Gulf and the Mississippi, and through it the ' P^ucts ot 
the valley of that river (a region of vast extent and boundless 
fertility) find a main outlet to the sea in their destination to 

^T^^Z^oUorn^^ exists as to the treatment 
which Tmerica/vessels usually receive in these ports un ess 
they happen to have slaves on board ; but, in cases of that kind, 
complamts have been made, as already stated, ol officious in- 
terference of the colonial authorities with the vessel, foi the 
purpose of changing the condition in which these persons are, 
L Sie laws of thei? own country, and of setting them free 

* In the southern states of this Union slavery exists b> the laws 
of the states and under the guarantee of the Constitution of the 
United States; and it has existed in them from a period long 
antecedent fe the time when they ceased to be British colonies. 
In this state of things, it will happen that slaves will be ol en 
on board coasting vessels, as hands, as servants attending the 
families of their owners, or for the purpose of being carried 
from port to port. For the security of the rights of their citi- 
zens, when vessels having persons of this description on board 
are driven by stress of weather, or carried by unlawful force, 
into British ports, the United States propose the introduction 
of no new principle into the law of nations. They require only 
a faithful and exact observance of the injunctions ot that code, 
as understood and practiced in modern times. 

Your lordship observes that I have spoken only of American 
vessels driven into British ports by the disasters of the seas, 
or carried in by unlawful force. I confine my remarks to 
these cases, because they are the common cases, and because 
thev are the cases which the law of nations most emphatically 
exempts from interference. The maritime law is full of in- 
stances of the application of that great and practical rule, 
which' declares that that which is the clear result of necessity 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 85 

ought to draw after it no penalty and no hazard. If a ship be 
driven by stress of weather into a prohibited port, or into an 
open port with prohibited articles on board, in neither case is 
any forfeiture incurred. And what may be considered a still 
stronger case, it has been decided by eminent English authority, 
and that decision has received general approbation, that if a 
vessel be driven by necessity into a port strictly blockaded, 
this necessity is good defense, and exempts her from penalty. 

A vessel on the high seas, beyond the distance of a marine 
league from the shore, is regarded as part of the territory of the 
nation to which she belongs, and subjected exclusively to the 
jurisdiction of that nation. If, against the will of her master 
or owner, she be driven or carried nearer to the land, or even 
into port, those who have, or who ought to have, control over 
her, struggling all the while to keep her upon the high seas, 
and so within the exclusive jurisdiction of her own govern- 
ment, what reason or justice is there in creating a distinction 
between her rights and immunities in a position thus the result 
of absolute necessity, and the same rights and immunities before 
superior power had forced her out of her voluntary course ? 

But, my lord, the rule of law, and the comity and practice 
of nations, go much further than these cases of necessity, and 
allow even to a merchant vessel, coming into any open port of 
another country voluntarily, for the purposes of lawful trade, 
to bring with her, and keep over her, to a very considerable 
extent, the jurisdiction and authority of the laws of her own 
country, excluding to this extent, by consequence, the jurisdic- 
tion of the local law. A ship, say the publicists, though at 
anchor in a foreign harbor, preserves its jurisdiction and its 
laws. It is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts 
of its territory, though at sea, as the state retains its jurisdic- 
tion over them ; and, according to the commonly received 
custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in 
parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion. 

This is the doctrine of the law of nations, clearly laid down 
bv writers of received authority, and entirely conformable, as 
it* is supposed, with the practice of modern nations. 

If a murder be committed on board of an American vessel 
by one of the crew upon another or upon a passenger, or by a 
passenger on one of the crew or another passenger, while sucli 
vessel is lying in a port within the jurisdiction of a foreign state 
or sovereignty, the offense is cognizable and punishable by the 
proper court of the United States, in the same manner as if 
such offense had been committed on board the vessel on the 
high seas. The law of England is supposed to be the same. 

It is true that the jurisdiction of a nation over a vessel be- 
longing to it, while lying in the port of another, is not neces- 



86 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

sarily wholly exclusive. We do not so consider or so assert 
it. For any unlawful acts done by her while thus lying in 
port, and for all contracts entered into while there, by her 
master or owners, she and they must, doubtless, be answerable 
to the laws of the place. Nor, if her master or crew, while 
on board in such port, break the peace of the community by 
the commission of crimes, can exemption be claimed for them. 
But, nevertheless, the law of nations, as I have stated it. and 
the statutes of governments founded on that law, as I have re- 
ferred to them, show that enlightened nations, in modern times, 
do clearly hold that the jurisdiction and laws of a nation ac- 
company her ships not only over the high seas, but into ports 
and harbors, or wheresoever else they may be water-borne, 
for the general purpose of governing and regulating the rights, 
duties, and obligations of those on board thereof, and that, to 
the extent of the exercise of this jurisdiction, they are consider- 
ed as parts of the territory of the nation herself. 

If a vessel be driven by weather into the ports of another 
nation, it would hardly be alleged by any one that, by the 
mere force of such arrival within the waters of the state, the 
law of that state would so attach to the vessel as to affect ex- 
isting rights of property between persons on board, whether 
arising from contract or otherwise. The local law would not 
operate to make the goods of one man to become the goods of 
another man. Nor ought it to affect their personal obligations, 
or existing relations between themselves; nor was it ever sup- 
posed to have such effect, until the delicate and exciting ques- 
tion which has caused these interferences in the British islands 
arose. The local law in these cases dissolves no obligations 
or relations lawfully entered into or lawfully existing accord- 
ing to the laws of the ship's country. If it did, intercourse of 
civilized men between nation and nation must cease. Marriages 
are frequently celebrated in one country in a manner not law- 
ful or valid in another ; but did any body ever doubt that mar- 
riages are valid all over the civilized world, if valid in the 
country in which they took place ? Did any one ever imagine 
that local law acted upon such marriages to annihilate their 
obligation, if the party should visit a country in which marriages 
must be celebrated in another form ? 

It may be said that, in such instances, personal relations are 
founded in contract, and therefore to be respected ; but that 
the relation of master and slave is not founded in contract, and 
therefore is to be respected only by the law of the place which 
recognizes it. Whoever so reasons encounters the authority 
of the whole body of public law from Grotius down; because 
there are numerous instances in which the law itself presumes 
or implies contracts ; and prominent among those instances is 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 87 

the very relation which we are now considering, and which re- 
lation is holden by law to draw after it mutuality of obligation. 
Is not the relation between a father and his minor children 
acknowledged when they go abroad ? And on what contract 
is this founded, but a contract raised by general principles of 
law, from the relation of the parties ? 

Your lordship will please to bear in mind that the proposi- 
tion which I am endeavoring to support is, that by the comity 
of the law of nations, and the practice of modern times, mer- 
chant vessels entering open ports of other nations, for the pur- 
pose of trade, are presumed to be allowed to bring with them, 
and to retain, for their protection and government, the jurisdic- 
tion and laws of their own country. All this, I repeat, is pre- 
sumed to be allowed ; because the ports are open, because 
trade is invited, and because, under these circumstances, such 
permission or allowance is according to general usage. It is 
not denied that all this may be refused ; and this suggests a 
distinction, the disregard of which may, perhaps, account for 
most of the difficulties arising in cases of this sort ; that is to 
say, the distinction between what a state may do, if it pleases, 
and what it is presumed to do, or not to do, in the absence of 
any positive declaration of its will. A state might declare that 
all" foreign marriages should be regarded as null and void with- 
in its territory ; that a foreign father, arriving with an infant 
son, should no longer have authority or control over him ; that, 
on the arrival of a foreign vessel in its ports, all shipping arti- 
cles, and all indentures of apprenticeship between her crew and 
her owners or masters, should cease to be binding. These, and 
many other things equally irrational and absurd, a sovereign 
state has doubtless the power to do ; but they are not to be 
presumed. It is not to be taken for granted, ab ante, that it is 
the will of the sovereign state thus to withdraw itself from the 
circle of civilized nations. It will be time enough to believe 
this to be its intention when it formally announces that inten- 
tion by appropriate enactments, edicts, or other declarations. 

In regard to slavery within the British territories, there is a 
well-known and clear promulgation of the will of the sovereign 
authority ; that is to say, there is a well-known rule of her 
law. As to England herself, that law has long existed ; and 
recent acts of Parliament establish the same law for the colo- 
nies. The usual mode of stating the rule of English law is, 
that no sooner does a slave reach the shore of England than he 
is free. This is true ; but it means no more than that when a 
slave comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of England he 
ceases to be a slave, because the law of England positively 
and notoriously prohibits and forbids the existence of such a 
relation between man and man. But it does not mean that 



88 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

English authorities, with this rule of English law in their hands, 
may enter where the jurisdiction of another nation is acknowl- 
edged to exist, and there destroy rights, obligations, and in- 
terests lawfully existing under the authority of such other na- 
tion. No such construction, and no such effect, can be right- 
fully given to the British law. It is true that it is competent 
to the British Parliament, by express statute provision, to de- 
clare that no foreign jurisdiction of any kind should exist in or 
over a vessel after its arrival voluntarily in her ports. And so 
she might close all her ports to the ships of all nations. A 
state may also declare, in the absence of treaty stipulations, 
that foreigners shall not sue in her courts, nor travel in her 
territories, nor carrv awav funds or goods received for debts. 
We need not inquire what would be the condition of a country 
that should establish such laws, nor in what relation they would 
leave her toward the states of the civilized world. Her power 
to make such laws is unquestionable ; but, in the absence of 
direct and positive enactments to that effect, the presumption 
is that the opposites of these things exist. While her ports are 
open to foreign trade, it is to be presumed that she expects 
foreign ships to enter them, bringing with them the jurisdic- 
tion of their own government, and the protection of its laws, 
to the same extent that her ships and the ships of other com- 
mercial states carry with them the jurisdiction of their re- 
spective governments into the open ports of the world ; just 
as it is presumed, while the contrary is not avowed, that 
strangers may travel in a civilized country in a time of peace, 
sue in its courts, and bring away their property. 

A merchant vessel enters the port of a friendly state, and en- 
joys while there the protection of her own laws, and is under 
the jurisdiction of her own government, not in derogation of 
the sovereignty of the place, but by the presumed allowance 
or permission of that sovereignty. This permission or allow- 
ance is founded on the comity of nations, like the other cases 
which have been mentioned ; and this comity is part, and a 
most important and valuable part, of the law of nations, to 
which all nations are presumed to assent until they make their 
dissent known. In the silence of any positive rule affirming, 
or denying, or restraining the operation of foreign laws, their 
tacit adoption is presumed, to the usual extent. It is upon this 
ground that the courts of law expound contracts according to 
the law of the place in which they are made ; and instances 
almost innumerable exist in which, by the general practice of 
civilized countries, the laws of one will be recognized and often 
executed in another. This is the comity of nations ; and it is 
upon this, as its solid basis, that the intercourse of civilized 
states is maintained. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 89 

But while that which has now been said is understood to be 
the voluntary and adopted law of nations, in cases of the vol- 
untary entry of merchant vessels into the ports of other coun- 
tries, it is nevertheless true that vessels in such ports, only 
through an overruling necessity, may place their claim for ex- 
emption from interference on still higher principles ; that is to 
say, principles held in more sacred regard by the comity, the 
courtesy, or, indeed, the common sense of justice of all civilized 
states. 

Even in regard to cases of necessity, however, there are 
things of an unfriendly and offensive character, which yet it 
may not be easy to say that a nation might not do. For ex- 
ample, a nation might declare her will to be, and make it the 
law of her dominions, that foreign vessels cast away on her 
shores should be lost to their owners, and subject to the ancient 
law of wreck. Or a neutral state, while shutting her ports to 
the armed vessels of belligerents, as she has a right to do, 
might resolve on seizing and confiscating vessels of that de- 
scription which should be driven to take shelter in her har- 
bors by the violence of the storms of the ocean. But laws of 
this character, however within the absolute competence of 
governments, could only be passed, if passed at all, under will- 
ingness to meet the last responsibility to which nations are 
subjected. 

The presumption is stronger, therefore, in regard to vessels 
driven into foreign ports by necessity, and seeking only tem- 
porary refuge, than in regard to those which enter them vol- 
untarily, and for purposes of trade, that they will not be inter- 
fered with ; and that, unless they commit, while in port, some 
act against the laws of the place, they will be permitted to re- 
ceive supplies, to repair damages, and to depart unmolested. 

If, therefore, vessels of the United States, pursuing lawful 
voyages from port to port along their own shore, are driven 
by stress of weather, or carried by unlawful force, into English 
ports, the government of the United States can not consent 
that the local authorities in those ports shall take advantage 
of such misfortunes, and enter them for the purpose of inter- 
fering with the condition of persons or things on board, as 
established by their own laws. If slaves, the property of 
citizens of the United States, escape into the British territories, 
it is not expected that they will be restored. In that case, the 
territorial jurisdiction of England will have become exclusive 
over them, and must decide their condition. But slaves on 
board of American vessels, lying in British waters, are not 
within the exclusive jurisdiction of England, or under the ex- 
clusive operation of English law ; and this founds the broad 
distinction between the cases. If persons, guilty of crimes in 



90 DIPLOMATIC AXD OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

the United States, seek an asylum in the British dominions, 
they will not be demanded, until provision for such cases be 
made by treaty ; because the giving up of criminals, fugitive 
from justice, is agreed and understood to be a matter in which 
every nation regulates its conduct according to its own discre- 
tion. It is no breach of comity to refuse such surrender. 

On the other hand, vessels of the United States, driven by 
necessity into British ports, and staying there no longer than 
such necessity exists, violating no law, nor having intent to 
violate any law, will claim, and there will be claimed for them, 
protection and security, freedom from molestation, and from 
all interference with the character or condition of persons or 
things on board. In the opinion of the government of the 
United States, such vessels, so driven and so detained by ne- 
cessity in a friendly port, ought to be regarded as still pursuing 
their original voyage, and turned out of their direct course only 
by disaster, or by wrongful violence ; that they ought to receive 
all assistance necessary to enable them to resume that direct 
course ; and that interference and molestation by the local au- 
thorities, where the whole voyage is lawful, both in act and in- 
tent, is ground for just and grave complaint. 

Your lordship's discernment and large experience in affairs 
can not fail to suggest to you how important it is to merchants 
and navigators engaged in the coasting trade of a country so 
large in extent as the United States, that they should feel se- 
cure against all but the ordinary causes of maritime loss. The 
possessions of the two governments closely approach each 
other. This proximity, which ought to make us friends and 
good neighbors, may, without proper care and regulation, it- 
self prove a ceaseless cause of vexation, irritation, and dis- 
quiet. 

If your lordship has no authority to enter into a stipulation 
by treaty for the prevention of such occurrences hereafter as 
have already happened, occurrences so likely to disturb that 
peace between the two countries which it is the object of your 
lordship's mission to establish and confirm, you may still be so 
far acquainted with the sentiments of your government as to 
be able to engage that instructions shall be given to the local 
authorities in the islands, which shall lead them to regulate 
their conduct in conformity with the rights of citizens of the 
United States, and the just expectations of their government, 
and in such manner as shall, in future, take away all reasona- 
ble ground of complaint. It would be with the most profound 
regret that the President should see that, while it is now hoped 
so many other subjects of difference may be harmoniously ad- 
justed, nothing should be done in regard to this dangerous 
source of future collisions. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 91 

I avail myself of this occasion to renew to your lordship the 
assurances of my distinguished consideration. 

Daniel Webster. 

Lord Ashburton, &c, &c, &c. 

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, August 6, 1842. 

Sir, — You may be well assured that I am duly sensible of 
the great importance of the subject to which you call my at- 
tention in the note which you did me the honor of addressing 
me the 1st instant, in which you inform me that the President 
had been pleased to express his regret that 1 was not empow- 
ered by my government to enter into a formal stipulation for 
the better security of vessels of the United States when meet- 
ing with disasters in passing between the United States and 
the Bahama Islands, and driven by such disasters into British 
ports. 

It is, I believe, unnecessary that I should tell you that the 
case of the Creole was known in London a few days only be- 
fore my departure. No complaint had at that time been made 
by Mr. Everett. The subject was not, therefore, among those 
which it was the immediate object of my mission to discuss. 
But at the same time I must admit that, from the moment I 
was acquainted with the facts of this case, I was sensible of all 
its importance, and I should not think myself without power 
to consider of some adjustment of, and remedy for, a great ac- 
knowledged difficulty, if I could see my way clearly to any 
satisfactory course, and if I had not arrived at the conclusion, 
after very anxious consideration, that, for the reasons which I 
will state, this question had better be treated in London, where 
it will have a much increased chance of settlement on terms 
likely to satisfy the interests of the United States. 

The immediate case of the Creole would be easily disposed 
of, but involves a class and description of cases which, for the 
purpose of affording that security you seek for the trade of 
America through the Bahama Channel, brings into considera- 
tion questions of law, both national and international, of the 
highest importance ; and, to increase the delicacy and diffi- 
culty of the subject, public feeling is sensitively alive to every 
thing connected with it. These circumstances bring me to 
the conviction that, although I really believe that much may 
be done to meet the wishes of your government, the means of 
doing so would be best considered in London, where immediate 
reference may be had to the highest authorities on every point 
of delicacy and difficulty that may arise. Whatever I might 
attempt would be more or less under the disadvantage of be- 
ing fettered by apprehensions of responsibility, and I might 



92 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

thereby be kept within limits which my government at home 
might disregard. In other words, I believe vou would have 
a better chance in this settlement with them than with me. 
I state this after some imperfect endeavors, by correspond- 
ence, to come at satisfactory explanations. If I were in this 
instance treating of ordinary material interests, I should pro- 
ceed with more confidence ; but, anxious as I unfeignedly am 
that all questions likely to disturb the future understanding be- 
tween us should be averted, I strongly recommend this ques- 
tion of the security of the Bahama Channel being referred for 
discussion in London. 

This opinion is more decidedly confirmed by your very elab- 
orate and important argument on the application of the gen- 
eral principles of the law of nations to these subjects — an argu- 
ment to which your authority necessarily gives great weight, 
but in which I would not presume to follow you with my own 
imperfect means. Great Britain and the United States, cov- 
ering all the seas of the world with their commerce, have the 
greatest possible interest in maintaining sound and pure princi- 
ples of international law, as well as the practice of reciprocal 
aid and good offices in all their harbors and possessions. With 
respect to the latter, it is satisfactory to know that the dispo- 
sition of the respective governments and people leaves little to 
be desired, with the single exception of those very delicate and 
perplexing questions which have recently arisen from the state 
of slavery, and even these seem confined, and likely to continue 
to be confined, to the narrow passage of the Bahama Channel. 
At no other part of the British possessions are American ves- 
sels with slaves ever likely to touch, nor are they likely to touch 
there otherwise than from the pressure of very urgent neces- 
sity. The difficulty, therefore, as well as the desired remedy, 
is apparently confined within narrow limits. 

Upon the great general principles affecting this case we do 
not differ. You admit that if slaves, the property of American 
citizens, escape into British territories, it is not expected that 
they will be restored ; and you may be well assured that there 
is no wish on our part that they should reach our shores, or 
that British possessions should be used as decoys for the vio- 
lators of the laws ot a friendly neighbor. 

When these slaves do reach us, by whatever means, there is 
no alternative. The present state of British law is in this re- 
spect too well known to require repetition ; nor need I remind 
you that it is exactly the same with the laws of every part of the 
United States where a state of slavery is not recognized ; and 
that the slave put on shore at Nassau would be dealt with ex- 
actly as would a foreign slave landed, under any circumstan- 
ces whatever, at Boston. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 93 

Bat what constitutes the being within British dominion, from 
which these consequences are to follow ? Is a vessel passing 
through the Bahama Channel, and forced involuntarily, either 
from storm or mutiny, into British waters, to be so considered? 
What power have the authorities of those islands to take cog- 
nizance of persons or property in such vessels ? These are 
questions which you, sir, have discussed at great length, and 
with evident ability. Although you have advanced some prop- 
ositions which rather surprise and startle me, I do not pretend 
to judge them; but what is very clear is, that great principles 
are involved in a discussion which it would ill become me light- 
ly to enter upon ; and I am confirmed by this consideration in 
wishing that the subject be referred to where it will be per- 
fectly weighed and examined. 

It behooves the authorities of our two governments well to 
guard themselves against establishing by their diplomatic in- 
tercourse false precedents and principles, and that they do not, 
for the purpose of meeting a passing difficulty, set examples 
which may hereafter mislead the world. 

It is not intended on this occasion to consider in detail the 
particular instances which have given rise to these discussions. 
They have already been stated and explained. Our object is 
rather to look to the means of future prevention of such occur- 
rences. That this may be obtained, I have little doubt, al- 
though we may not be able immediately to agree on the pre- 
cise stipulations of a treaty. On the part of Great Britain, there 
are certain great principles too deeply rooted in the consciences 
and sympathies of the people for any minister to be able to 
overlook ; and any engagement I might make in opposition to 
them would be instantly disavowed ; but, at the same time that 
we maintain our own laws within our own territories, we are 
bound to respect those of our neighbors, and to listen to every 
possible suggestion of means of averting from them every an- 
noyance and injury. I have great confidence that this may be 
effectually done in the present instance ; but the case to be met 
and remedied is new, and must not be too hastily dealt with. 
You may, however, be assured that measures so important for 
the preservation of friendly intercourse between the two coun- 
tries shall not be neglected. 

In the mean time, I can engage that instructions shall be given 
to the governors of her majesty's colonies on the southern bor- 
ders of the United States to execute their own laws with care- 
ful attention to the wish of their government to maintain good 
neighborhood, and that there shall be no officious interference 
with American vessels driven by accident or by violence into 
those ports. The laws and duties of hospitality shall be exe- 
cuted ; and these seem neither to require nor to justify any fur- 



94 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

ther inquisition into the state of persons or things on board of 
vessels so situated than may be indispensable to enforce the ob- 
servance of the municipal law of the colony, and the proper 
regulation of its harbors and waters. 

A strict and careful attention to these rules, applied in good 
faith to all transactions as they arise, will, I hope and believe, 
without any abandonment of great and general principles, lead 
to the avoidance of any excitement or agitation on this very 
sensitive subject of slavery, and, consequently, of those irrita- 
ting feelings which may have a tendency to bring into peril all 
the great interests connected with the maintenance of peace. 

I further trust that friendly sentiments, and a conviction of 
the importance of cherishing them, will on all occasions lead 
the two countries to consider favorably any further arrange- 
ments which may be judged necessary for the reciprocal pro- 
tection of their interests. 

I hope, sir, that this explanation on this very important sub- 
ject will be satisfactory to the President, and that he will see 
in it no diminution of that earnest desire, which you have been 
pleased to recognize in me, to perform my work of reconcilia- 
tion and friendship ; but that he will rather perceive in my sug- 
gestion, in this particular instance, that it is made with a well- 
founded hope of thereby better obtaining the object we have 
in view. 

I beg to renew to you, sir, the assurances of my high con- 
sideration. Ashburton. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, &c, &c, &c. 

Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 

Department of State, Washington, August 8, 1842. 

My Lord, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt ot 
your lordship's note of the 6th instant, in answer to mine of the 
1st, upon the subject of a stipulation for the better security of 
American vessels driven by accident or carried by force into 
the British West India ports. 

The President would have been gratified if you had felt 
yourself at liberty to proceed at once to consider of some 
proper arrangement, by formal treaty, for this object ; but 
there may be weight in the reasons which you urge for refer- 
ring such mode of stipulation for consideration in London. 

The President places his reliance on those principles of pub- 
lic law which were stated in my note to your lordship, and 
which are regarded as equally well founded and important ; 
and on your lordship's engagement that instructions shall be 
given to the governors of her majesty's colonies to execute 
their own laws with careful attention to the wish of their gov- 
ernment to maintain good neighborhood, and that there shall 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 95 

be no officious interference with American vessels driven by- 
accident or by violence into those ports ; that the laws and du- 
ties of hospitality shall be executed, and that these seem nei- 
ther to require nor to justify any further inquisition into the 
state of persons or things on board of vessels so situated than 
may be indispensable to enforce the observance of the munic- 
ipal law of the colony, and the proper regulation of its harbors 
and waters. He indulges the hope, nevertheless, that, actua- 
ted by a just sense of what is due to the mutual interests of the 
two countries, and the maintenance of a permanent peace be- 
tween them, her majesty's government will not fail to see the 
importance of removing, by such further stipulations, by treaty 
or otherwise, as may be found to be necessary, all cause of 
complaint connected with this subject. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, your lord- 
ship's obedient servant, Daniel Webster. 
Lord Ashburton, &c, &c, &c. 



IMPRESSMENT. 
Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 

Department of State, Washington, August 8, 1842. 

My Lord, — We have had several conversations on the sub- 
ject of impressment, but I do not understand that your lordship 
has instructions from your government to negotiate upon it, nor 
does the government of the United States see any utility in 
opening such negotiation, unless the British government is pre- 
pared to renounce the practice in all future wars. 

No cause has produced to so great an extent, and for so 
long a period, disturbing and irritating influences on the politic- 
al relations of the United States and England, as the impress- 
ment of seamen by British cruisers from American merchant 
vessels. 

From the commencement of the French Revolution to the 
breaking out of the war between the two countries in 1812, 
hardly a year elapsed without loud complaint and earnest re- 
monstrance. A deep feeling of opposition to the right claimed, 
and to the practice exercised under it, and not unfrequently 
exercised without the least regard to what justice and humanity 
would have dictated, even if the right itself had been admitted, 
took possession of the public mind of America, and this feeling, 
it is well known, co-operated most powerfully with other causes 
to produce the state of hostilities which ensued. 

At different periods, both before and since the war, negoti- 
ations have taken place between the two governments, with 
the hope of finding some means of quieting these complaints. 



95 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

At some times, the effectual abolition of the practice has been 
requested and treated of; at other times, its temporary suspen- 
sion ; and at other times, again, the limitation of its exercise 
and some security against its enormous abuses. 

A common destiny has attended these efforts ; they have all 
failed. The question stands at this moment where it stood fifty 
years ago. The nearest approach to a settlement was a con- 
vention proposed in 1803, and which had come to the point of 
signature, when it was broken off in consequence of the British 
government insisting that the narrow seas should be expressly 
excepted out of the sphere over which the contemplated stip- 
ulations against impressment should extend. The American 
minister, Mr. King, regarded this exception as quite inadmis- 
sible, and chose rather to abandon the negotiation than to ac- 
quiesce in the doctrine which it proposed to establish. 

England asserts the right of impressing British subjects, in 
time of war, out of neutral merchant vessels, and of deciding 
by her visiting officers who, among the crews of such merchant 
vessels, are British subjects. She asserts this as a legal exer- 
cise of the prerogative of the crown ; which prerogative is al- 
leged to be founded on the English law of the perpetual and in- 
dissoluble allegiance of the subject, and his obligation, under all 
circumstances, and for his whole life, to render military service 
to the crown whenever required. 

This statement, made in the words of eminent British jurists, 
shows at once that the English claim is far broader than the 
basis or platform on which it is raised. The law relied on is 
English law ; the obligations insisted on are obligations exist- 
ing between the crown of England and its subjects. This law 
and these obligations, it is admitted, may be such as England 
may choose they shall be. But, then, they must be confined to 
the parties. Impressment of seamen, out of and beyond En- 
glish territory, and from on board the ships of other nations, is 
an interference with the rights of other nations ; is further, 
therefore, than English prerogative can legally extend ; and is 
nothing but an attempt to enforce the peculiar law of England 
beyond the dominions and jurisdiction of the crown. The 
claim asserts an extra territorial authority for the law of British 
prerogative, and assumes to exercise this extra territorial au- 
thority, to the manifest injury and annoyance of the citizens 
and subjects of other states, on board their own vessels on the 
high seas. 

Every merchant vessel on the seas is rightfully considered 
as part of the territory of the country to which it belongs. 
The entry, therefore, into such vessel, being neutral, by a bellig- 
erent is an act of force, and is, prima facie, a wrong, a tres- 
pass, which can be justified only when done for some purpose, 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 97 

allowed to form a sufficient justification by the law of nations. 
But a British cruiser enters an American merchant vessel in 
order to take therefrom supposed British subjects : offering no 
justification, therefore, under the law of nations, but claiming 
the right under the law of England respecting the king's pre- 
rogative. This can not be defended. English soil, English 
territory, English jurisdiction, is the appropriate sphere for the 
operation of English law. The ocean is the sphere of the law 
of nations : and any merchant vessel on the seas is, by that law, 
under the protection of the laws of her own nation, and may 
claim immunity, unless in cases in which that law allows her 
to be entered or visited. 

If this notion of perpetual allegiance, and the consequent 
power of the prerogative, was the law of the world ; if it form- 
ed part of the conventional code of nations, and was usually 
practiced like the right of visiting neutral ships, for the purpose 
of discovering and seizing enemy property, then impressment 
might be defended as a common right, and there would be no 
remedy for the evil till the national code should be altered. 
But this is by no means the case. There is no such principle 
incorporated into the code of nations. The doctrine stands 
only as English law, not as a national law ; and English law 
can not be of force beyond English dominion. Whatever 
duties or relations that law creates between the sovereign and 
his subjects can be enforced and maintained only within the 
realm, or proper possessions or territory of the sovereign. 
There may be quite as just a prerogative right to the property 
of subjects as to their personal services, in an exigency of the 
state ; but no government thinks of controlling by its own laws 
property of its subjects situated abroad ; much less does any 
government think of entering the territory of another power 
for the purpose of seizing such property and applying it to its 
own uses. As laws, the prerogatives of the crown of England 
have no obligation on persons or property domiciled or situated 
abroad. 

" When, therefore," says an authority not unknown or unre- 
garded on either side of the Atlantic, " we speak of the right 
of a state to bind its own native subjects every where, we 
speak only of its own claim and exercise of sovereignty over 
them when they return within its own territorial jurisdiction, 
and not of its right to compel or require obedience to such laws, 
on the part of other nations, within their own territorial sov- 
ereignty. On the contrary, every nation has an exclusive right 
to regulate persons and things within its own territory, accord- 
ing to its sovereign will and public polity." 

The good sense of these principles, their remarkable perti- 
nency to the subject now under consideration, and the extra- 

G 



98 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

ordinary consequences resulting from the British doctrine, are 
signally manifested by that which we see taking place every 
day. England acknowledges herself overburdened with popu- 
lation of the poorer classes. Every instance of the emigration 
of persons of those classes is regarded by her as a benefit. 
England, therefore, encourages emigration ; means are notori- 
ously supplied to emigrants, to assist their conveyance, from 
public funds ; and the New World, and most especially these 
United States, receive the many thousands of her subjects thus 
ejected from the bosom of their native land by the necessities 
of their condition. They come away from poverty and dis- 
tress in over-crowded cities, to seek employment, comfort, and 
new homes in a country of free institutions, possessed by a 
kindred race, speaking their own language, and having laws 
and usages in many respects like those to which they have 
been accustomed ; and a country which, upon the whole, is 
found to possess more attractions for persons of their character 
and condition than any other on the face of the globe. It is 
stated that, in the quarter of the year ending with June last, 
more than twenty-six thousand emigrants left the single port 
of Liverpool for the United States, being four or five times as 
many as left the same port within the same period for the 
British colonies and all other parts of the world. Of these 
crowds of emigrants, many arrive in our cities in circum- 
stances of great destitution, and the charities of the country, 
both public and private, are severely taxed to relieve their im- 
mediate wants. In time they mingle with the new community 
in which they find themselves, and seek means of living ; some 
find employment in the cities, others go to the frontiers, to cul- 
tivated lands reclaimed from the forest ; and a greater or less 
number of the residue, becoming in time naturalized citizens, 
enter into the merchant service under the flag of their adopted 
country. 

Now, my lord, if war should break out between England and 
a European power, can any thing be more unjust, any thing 
more irreconcilable to the general sentiments of mankind, than 
that England should seek out these persons, thus encouraged 
by her, and compelled by their own condition to leave their 
native homes, tear them away from their new employments, 
their new political relations, and their domestic connections, 
and force them to undergo the dangers and hardships of mili- 
tary service for a country which has thus ceased to be their 
own country ? Certainly, certainly, my lord, there can be but 
one answer to this question. Is it not far more reasonable that 
England should either prevent such emigration of her subjects, 
or that, if she encourage and promote it, she should leave them, 
not to the embroilment of a double and a contradictory alle- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PATERS. 99 

giance, but to their own voluntary choice, to form such rela- 
tions, political or social, as they see fit in the country where 
they are to find their bread, and to the laws and institutions 
of which they are to look for defense and protection ? 

A question of such serious importance ought now to be put 
at rest. If the United States give shelter and protection to 
those whom the policy of England annually casts upon their 
shores; if, by the benign influences of their government and 
institutions, and by the happy condition of the country, those 
emigrants become raised from poverty to comfort, finding it 
easy even to become landholders, and being allowed to partake 
in the enjoyment of all civil rights ; if all this may be done 
(and all this is done, under the countenance and encourage- 
ment of England herself), is it not high time, my lord, that, 
yielding that which had its origin in feudal ideas as inconsistent 
with the present state of society, and especially with the inter- 
course and relations subsisting between the Old World and the 
New, England should, at length, formally disclaim all right to 
the services of such persons, and renounce all control over their 
conduct ? 

But impressment is subject to objections of a much wider 
range. If it could be justified in its application to those who 
are declared to be its only objects, it still remains true that, in 
its exercise, it touches the political rights of other governments, 
and endangers the security of their own native subjects and 
citizens. The sovereignty of the state is concerned in main- 
taining its exclusive jurisdiction and possession over its mer- 
chant ships on the seas, except so far as the law of nations 
justifies intrusion upon that possession for special purposes ; 
and all experience has shown that no member of a crew, wher- 
ever born, is safe against impressment when a ship is visited. 

The evils and injuries resulting from the actual practice can 
hardly be overstated, and have ever proved themselves to be 
such as should lead to its relinquishment, even if it were found- 
ed in any defensible principle. The difficulty of discriminating 
between English subjects and American citizens has always 
been found to be great, even when an honest purpose of dis- 
crimination has existed. But the lieutenant of a man-of-war, 
having necessity for men, is apt to be a summary judge, and 
his decisions will be quite as significant of his own wants and 
his own power as of the truth and justice of the case. An ex- 
tract from a letter of Mr. King, of the 13th of April, 1797, to 
the American Secretary of State, shows something of the enor- 
mous extent of these wrongful seizures : 

" Instead of a few, and these in many instances equivocal 
cases, I have," says he, " since the month of July past, made 
application for the discharge, from British men-of-war, of two 



100 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

hundred and seventy-one seamen, who, stating themselves to 
be Americans, have claimed my interference. Of this number 
eighty-six have been ordered by the Admiralty to be discharg- 
ed, thirty-seven more have been detained as British subjects or 
as American volunteers, or for want of proof that they are 
Americans, and to my applications for the discharge of the re- 
maining one hundred and forty-eight I have received no an- 
swer ; the ships on board of which these seamen were detained 
having, in many instances, sailed before an examination was 
made in consequence of my application. 

" It is certain that some of those who have applied to me are 
not American citizens, but the exceptions are, in my opinion, 
few, and the evidence, exclusive of certificates, has been such 
as, in most cases, to satisfy me that the applicants were real 
Americans, who have been forced into the British service, and 
who, with singular constancy, have generally persevered in 
refusing pay or bounty, though in some instances they have 
been in service more than two years." 

But the injuries of impressment are by no means confined to 
its immediate subjects or the individuals on whom it is prac- 
ticed. Vessels suffer from the weakening of their crews, and 
voyages are often delayed, and not unfrequently broken up, by 
subtraction from the number of necessary hands by impress- 
ment. And what is still of greater and more general moment, 
the fear of impressment has been found to create great diffi- 
culty in obtaining sailors for the American merchant service in 
times of European war. Sea-faring men, otherwise inclined to 
enter into that service, are, as experience has shown, deterred 
by the fear of finding themselves ere long in compulsory mili- 
tary service in British ships of war. Many instances have 
occurred, fully established in proof, in which raw seamen, 
natives of the United States, fresh from the fields of agricul- 
ture, entering for the first time on shipboard, have been im- 
pressed before they made the land, placed on the decks of 
British men-of-war, and compelled to serve for years before 
they could obtain their release, or revisit their country and 
their homes. Such instances become known, and their effect 
in discouraging young men from engaging in the merchant 
service of their country can neither be doubted nor wondered 
at. More than all, my lord, the practice of impressment, 
whenever it has existed, has produced not conciliation and 
good feeling, but resentment, exasperation, and animosity be- 
tween the two great commercial countries of the world. 

In the calm and quiet which have succeeded the late war — 
a condition so favorable for dispassionate consideration — En- 
gland herself has evidently seen the harshness of impressment, 
even when exercised on seamen in her own merchant service, 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 101 

and she has adopted measures calculated, if not to renounce the 
power or to abolish the practice, yet, at least, to supersede its 
necessity by other means of manning the royal navy more com- 
patible with justice and the rights of individuals, and far more 
conformable to the spirit and sentiments of the age. 

Under these circumstances, the government of the United 
States has used the occasion of your lordship's pacific mission 
to review this whole subject, and to bring it to your notice and 
that of your government. It has reflected on the past, ponder- 
ed the condition of the present, and endeavored to anticipate, 
so far as might be in its power, the probable future ; and I am 
now to communicate to your lordship the result of these delib- 
erations. 

The American government, then, is prepared to say that the 
practice of impressing seamen from American vessels can not 
hereafter be allowed to take place. That practice is founded 
on principles which it does not recognize, and is invariably at- 
tended by consequences so unjust, so injurious, and of such 
formidable magnitude, as can not be submitted to. 

In the early disputes between the two governments on this 
so long -contested topic, the distinguished person to whose 
hands were first intrusted the seals of this department, declar- 
ed, that " the simplest rule will be, that the vessel being Amer- 
ican, shall be evidence that the seamen on board are such." 

Fifty years' experience, the utter failure of many negotia- 
tions, and a careful reconsideration, now had, of the whole sub- 
ject, at a moment when the passions are laid, and no present in- 
terest or emergency exists to bias the judgment, have fully con- 
vinced this government that this is not only the simplest and 
best, but the only rule, which can be adopted and observed, 
consistently with the rights and honor of the United States and 
the security of their citizens. That rule announces, therefore, 
what will hereafter be the principle maintained by their gov- 
ernment. In every regularly-documented American merchant 
vessel the crew who navigate it will find their protection in 
the flag which is over them. 

This announcement is not made, my lord, to revive useless 
recollections of the past, nor to stir the embers from fires which 
have been, in a great degree, smothered by many years of 
peace. Far otherwise. Its purpose is to extinguish those fires 
effectually, before new incidents arise to fan them into flame. 
The communication is in the spirit of peace, and for the sake 
of peace, and springs from a deep and conscientious convic- 
tion that high interests of both nations require this so long- 
contested and controverted subject now to be finally put to 
rest. I persuade myself, my lord, that you will do justice to 
this frank and sincere avowal of motives, and that you will 



102 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPEKS. 

communicate your sentiments in this respect to your govern- 
ment. 

This letter closes, my lord, on my part, our official corre- 
spondence ; and I gladly use the occasion to offer you the as- 
surance of my high and sincere regard. 

Daniel Webster. 

Lord Ashburton, &c, &c, &c. 

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, August 9, 1842. 

g IR? — The note you did me the honor of addressing me the 
8th instant, on the subject of impressment, shall be transmitted 
without delay to my government, and will, you may be assured, 
receive from them the deliberate attention which its import- 
ance deserves. 

The object of my mission was mainly the settlement of ex- 
isting subjects of difference ; and no differences have or could 
have arisen of late years with respect to impressment, because 
the practice has, since the peace, wholly ceased, and can not, 
consistently with existing laws and regulations for manning her 
majesty's navy, be, under the present circumstances, renewed. 
Desirous, however, of looking far forward into futurity to an- 
ticipate even possible causes of disagreement, and sensible of 
the anxiety of the American people on this grave subject of 
past irritation, I should be sorry in any way to discourage the 
attempt at some settlement of it ; and, although without au- 
thority to enter upon it here during the limited continuance of 
my mission, I entertain a confident hope that this task may be 
accomplished, when undertaken, with the spirit of candor and 
conciliation which has marked all our late negotiations. 

It not being our intention to endeavor now to come to any 
agreement on this subject, I may be permitted to abstain from 
noticing at length your very ingenious arguments relating to it, 
and from discussing the graver matters of constitutional and in- 
ternational law growing out of them. These sufficiently show 
that the question is one requiring calm consideration ; though 
I must, at the same time, admit that they prove a strong neces- 
sity of some settlement for the preservation of that good un- 
derstanding which, I trust, we may flatter ourselves that our 
joint labors have now succeeded in establishing. 

I am well aware that the laws of our two countries main- 
tain opposite principles respecting allegiance to the sovereign. 
America, receiving every year by thousands the emigrants of 
Europe, maintains the doctrine suitable to her condition of the 
right of transferring allegiance at will. The laws of Great 
Britain have maintained from all time the opposite doctrine. 
The duties of allegiance are held to be indefeasible ; and it is 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 103 

believed that this doctrine, under various modifications, pre- 
vails in most, if not in all, the civilized states of Europe. 

Emigration, the modern mode by which the population of 
the world peaceably finds its level, is for the benefit of all, and 
eminently for the benefit of humanity. The fertile deserts of 
America are gradually advancing to the highest state of culti- 
vation and production, while the emigrant acquires comfort 
which his own confined home could not afford him. 

If there were any thing in our laws or our practice on either 
side tending to impede this march of providential humanity, 
we could not be too eager to provide a remedy ; but as this 
does not appear to be the case, we may safely leave this part of 
the subject without indulging in abstract speculations having 
no material practical application to matters in discussion be- 
tween us. 

But it must be admitted that a serious practical question does 
arise, or, rather, has existed, from practices formerly attending 
the mode of manning the British navy in times of war. The 
principle is, that all subjects of the crown are, in case of neces- 
sity, bound to serve their country, and the sea-faring man is 
naturally taken for the naval service. This is not, as is some- 
times supposed, any arbitrary principle of monarchical gov- 
ernment, but one founded on the natural duty of every man to 
defend the life of his country; and all the analogy of your laws 
would lead to the conclusion that the same principle would 
hold good in the United States if their geographical position 
did not make its application unnecessary. 

The very anomalous condition of the two countries with re- 
lation to each other here creates a serious difficulty. Our peo- 
ple are not distinguishable ; and, owing to the peculiar habits 
of sailors, our vessels are very generally manned from a com- 
mon stock. It is difficult, under these circumstances, to exe- 
cute laws which at times have been thought to be essential for 
the existence of the country, without risk of injury to others. 
The extent and importance of those injuries, however, are so 
formidable that it is admitted that some remedy should, if pos- 
sible, be applied ; at all events, it must be fairly and honestly 
attempted. It is true that during the continuance of peace no 
practical grievance can arise ; but it is also true that it is for 
that reason the proper season for the calm and deliberate con- 
sideration of an important subject. I have much reason to hope 
that a satisfactory arrangement respecting it may be made, so 
as to set at rest all apprehension and anxiety ; and I will only 
further repeat the assurance of the sincere disposition of my 
government favorably to consider all matters having for their 
object the promoting and maintaining undisturbed kind and 
friendly feelings with the United States. 



104 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

I beg, sir, on this occasion of closing the correspondence 
with you connected with my mission, to express the satisfaction 
I feel at its successful termination, and to assure you of my 
high consideration and personal esteem and regard. 

Ashburton. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, &c., &c, &c. 



INVIOLABILITY OF NATIONAL TERRITORY. 

CASE OF THE " CAROLINE." 
Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 

Department of State, Washington, July 27, 1842. 

My Lord, — In relation to the case of the "Caroline," which 
we have heretofore made the subject of conference, I have 
thought it right to place in your hands an extract of a letter 
from this department to Mr! Fox, of the 24th of April, 1841, 
and an extract from the message of the President of the United 
States to Congress at the commencement of its present session. 
These papers you have, no doubt, already seen ; but they are, 
nevertheless, now communicated, as such communication is 
considered a ready mode of presenting the view which this 
government entertains of the destruction of that vessel. 

The act of which the government of the United States com- 
plains is not to be considered as justifiable or unjustifiable, as 
the question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the employ- 
ment in which the " Caroline" was engaged may be decided the 
one way or the other. That act is of itself a wrong, and an 
offense to the sovereignty and the dignity of the United States, 
being a violation of their soil and territory — a wrong for which, 
to this day, no atonement, or even apology, has been made by 
her majesty's government. Your lordship can not but be 
aware that self-respect, the consciousness of independence and 
national equality, and a sensitiveness to whatever may touch 
the honor of the country — a sensitiveness which this govern- 
ment will ever feel and ever cultivate — make this a matter of 
high importance, and I must be allowed to ask for it your lord- 
ship's grave consideration. 

I have the honor to be, my lord, your lordship's most obe- 
dient servant, Daniel Webster. 

Lord Ashburton, &c, &c, &c. 

Extract of a letter from Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox, dated April 

24, 1841. 

The undersigned has now to signify to Mr. Fox that the 
government of the United States has not changed the opinion 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 105 

which it has heretofore expressed to her majesty's government 
of the character of the act of destroying the "Caroline." 

It does not think that that transaction can be justified by any 
reasonable application or construction of the right of self-de- 
fense under the law of nations. It is admitted that a just right 
of self-defense attaches always to nations as well as to individ- 
uals, and is equally necessary for the preservation of both. 
But the extent of this right is a question to be judged of by the 
circumstances of each particular case ; and when its alleged 
exercise has led to the commission of hostile acts within the 
territory of a power at peace, nothing less than a clear and 
absolute necessity can afford ground of justification. Not hav- 
ing up to this time been made acquainted with the views and 
reasons at length which have led her majesty's government to 
think the destruction of the " Caroline" justifiable, as an act of 
self-defense, the undersigned, earnestly renewing the remon- 
strance of this government against the transaction, abstains 
for the present from any extended discussion of the question. 
But it is deemed proper, nevertheless, not to omit to take some 
notice of the general grounds of justification stated by her maj- 
esty's government in their instruction to Mr. Fox. 

Her majesty's government have instructed Mr. Fox to say, 
that they are of opinion that the transaction which terminated 
in the destruction of the "Caroline" was a justifiable employ- 
ment of force for the purpose of defending the British territory 
from the unprovoked attack of a band of British rebels and 
American pirates, who, having been " permitted" to arm and 
organize themselves within the territory of the United States, 
had actually invaded a portion of the territory of her majesty. 

The President can not suppose that her majesty's govern- 
ment, by the use of these terms, meant to be understood as in- 
timating that those acts, violating the laws of the United States 
and disturbing the peace of the British territory, were done 
under any degree of countenance from this government, or 
were regarded by it with indifference, or that, under the cir- 
cumstances of the case, they could have been prevented by 
any ordinary course of proceeding. Although he regrets that, 
by using the term " permitted," a possible inference of that kind 
might be raised ; yet such an inference, the President is willing 
to believe, would be quite unjust to the intentions of the British 
government. 

That on a line of frontier, such as separates the United States 
from her Britannic majesty's North American provinces — a 
line long enough to divide the whole of Europe into halves — 
irregularities, violences, and conflicts should sometimes occur, 
equally against the will of both governments, is certainly easily 
to be supposed. This may be more possible, perhaps, in regard 



106 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

to the United States, without any reproach to their govern- 
ment, since their institutions entirely discourage the keeping 
up of large standing armies in time of peace, and their situa- 
tion happily exempts them from the necessity of maintaining 
such expensive and dangerous establishments. All that can be 
expected from either government, in these cases, is good faith, 
a sincere desire to preserve peace and do justice, the use of all 
proper means of prevention, and that, if offenses can not, nev- 
ertheless, be always prevented, the offenders shall still be justly 
punished. In all these respects, this government acknowledges 
no delinquency in the performance of its duties. 

Her majesty's government are pleased, also, to speak of 
those American citizens who took part with persons in Canada, 
engaged in an insurrection against the British government, as 
" American pirates." The undersigned does not admit the pro- 
priety or justice of this designation. If citizens of the United 
States fitted out, or were engaged in fitting out, a military ex- 
pedition from the United States, intended to act against the 
British government in Canada, they were clearly violating the 
laws of their own country, and exposing themselves to the just 
consequences which might be inflicted on them if taken within 
the British dominions. But, notwithstanding this, they were 
certainly not pirates, nor does the undersigned think that it can 
advance the purpose of fair and friendly discussion, or hasten 
the accommodation of national difficulties, so to denominate 
them. Their offense, whatever it was, had no analogy to cases 
of piracy. Supposing all that is alleged against them to be 
true, they were taking a part in what they regarded as a civil 
war, and they were taking a part on the side of the rebels. 
Surely England herself has not regarded persons thus engaged 
as deserving the appellation which her majesty's government 
bestows on these citizens of the United States. 

It is quite notorious that, for the greater part of the last two 
centuries, subjects of the British crown have been permitted to 
engage in foreign wars, both national and civil, and in the lat- 
ter in every stage of their progress ; and yet it has not been 
imagined that England has at any time allowed her subjects to 
turn pirates. Indeed, in our own times, not only have individ- 
ual subjects of that crown gone abroad to engage in civil wars, 
but we have seen whole regiments openly recruited, embodied, 
armed, and disciplined in England, with the avowed purpose 
of aiding a rebellion against a nation with which England was 
at peace ; although it is true that, subsequently, an act of Par- 
liament was passed to prevent transactions so nearly approach- 
ing to public war, without license from the crown. 

It may be said that there is a difference between the case of 
a civil war arising from a disputed succession, or a protracted 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 107 

revolt of a colony against the mother country, and the case of 
the fresh outbreak or commencement of a rebellion. The un- 
dersigned does not deny that such a distinction may, for cer- 
tain purposes, be deemed well founded. He admits that a gov- 
ernment, called upon to consider its own rights, interests, and 
duties, when civil wars break out in other countries, may de- 
cide on all the circumstances of the particular case upon its 
own existing stipulations, on probable results, on w hat its own 
security requires, and on many other considerations. It may 
be already bound to assist one party, or it may become bound, 
if it so chooses, to assist the other, and to meet the consequen- 
ces of such assistance. 

But whether the revolt be recent or long continued, they who 
join those concerned in it, whatever may be their offense against 
their own country, or however they may be treated, if taken 
with arms in their hands in the territory of the government 
against which the standard of revolt is raised, can not be de- 
nominated pirates without departing from all ordinary use of 
language in the definition of offenses. A cause which has so 
foul an origin as piracy can not, in its progress or by its suc- 
cess, obtain a claim to any degree of respectability or tolerance 
among nations ; and civil wars, therefore, are not understood 
to have such a commencement. 

It is well known to Mr. Fox that authorities of the highest 
eminence in England, living and dead, have maintained that 
the general law of nations does not forbid the citizens or sub- 
jects of one government from taking part in the civil commo- 
tions of another. There is some reason, indeed, to think that 
such may be the opinion of her majesty's government at the 
present moment. 

The undersigned has made these remarks from the convic- 
tion that it is important to regard established distinctions, and 
to view the acts and offenses of individuals in the exactly prop- 
er light. But it is not to be inferred that there is, on the part 
of this government, any purpose of extenuating in the slightest 
degree the crimes of those persons, citizens of the United States, 
who have joined in military expeditions against the British 
government in Canada. On the contrary, the President di- 
rects the undersigned to say, that it is his fixed resolution that 
all such disturbers of the national peace, and violators of the 
laws of their country, shall be brought to exemplary punish- 
ment. Nor will the fact that they are instigated and led on to 
these excesses by British subjects, refugees from the provinces, 
be deemed any excuse or palliation ; although it is well worthy 
of being remembered that the prime movers of these disturb- 
ances on the borders are subjects of the queen, who come with- 
in the territories of the United States, seeking to enlist the sym- 



108 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

pathies of their citizens by all the motives which they are able 
to address to them on account of grievances, real or imagina- 
ry. There is no reason to believe that the design of any hos- 
tile movement from the United States against Canada has com- 
menced with citizens of the United States. The true origin of 
such purposes and such enterprises is on the other side of the line. 
But the President's resolution to prevent these transgressions 
is not, on that account, the less strong. It is taken, not only in 
conformity to his duty under the provisions of existing laws, 
but in full consonance with the established principles and prac- 
tice of this government. 

The government of the United States has not from the first 
fallen into the doubts, elsewhere entertained, of the true extent 
of the duties of neutrality. It has held that, however it may 
have been in less enlightened ages, the just interpretation of the 
modern law of nations is, that neutral states are bound to be 
strictly neutral ; and that it is a manifest and gross improprie- 
ty for individuals to engage in the civil conflicts of other states, 
and thus to be at war while their government is at peace. War 
and peace are high national relations, which can properly be 
established or changed only by nations themselves. 

The United States have thought, also, that the salutary doc- 
trine of non-intervention by one nation with the affairs of oth- 
ers is liable to be essentially impaired if, while government re- 
frains from interference, interference is still allowed to its sub- 
jects, individually or in masses. It may happen, indeed, that 
persons choose to leave their country, emigrate to other re- 
gions, and settle themselves on uncultivated lands in terri- 
tories belonging to other states. This can not be prevented 
by governments which allow the emigration of their subjects 
and citizens ; and such persons, having voluntarily abandon- 
ed their own country, have no longer claim to its protec- 
tion, nor is it longer responsible for their acts. Such cases, 
therefore, if they occur, show no abandonment of the duty of 
neutrality. 

The government of the United States has not considered it 
as sufficient to confine the duties of neutrality and non-inter- 
ference to the case of governments whose territories lie adja- 
cent to each other. The application of the principle may be 
more necessary in such cases, but the principle itself they re- 
gard as being the same, if those territories be divided by half 
the globe. The rule is founded in the impropriety and danger 
of allowing individuals to make war on their own authority, or, 
by mingling themselves in the belligerent operations of other 
nations, to run the hazard of counteracting the policy or em- 
broiling the relations of their own government. And the Unit- 
ed States have been the first among civilized nations to enforce 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPER3. 109 

the observance of this just rule of neutrality and peace, by spe- 
cial and adequate legal enactments. In the infancy of this gov- 
ernment, on the breaking out of the European wars which had 
their origin in the French Revolution, Congress passed laws, 
with severe penalties, for preventing the citizens of the United 
States from taking part in those hostilities. 

By these laws, it prescribed to the citizens of the United 
States what it understood to be their duty, as neutrals, accord- 
ing to the law of nations, and the duty, also, which they owed 
to the interest and honor of their own country. 

At a subsequent period, when the American colonies of a 
European power took up arms against their sovereign, Con- 
gress, not diverted from the established system of the govern- 
ment by any temporary considerations, not swerved from its 
sense of justice and of duty by any sympathies which it might 
naturally feel for one of the parties, did not hesitate, also, to 
pass acts applicable to the case of colonial insurrection and 
civil war. And these provisions of law have been continued, 
revised, amended, and are in full force at the present moment. 
Nor have they been a dead letter, since it is well known that 
exemplary punishments have been inflicted on those who have 
transgressed them. It is known, indeed, that heavy penalties 
have fallen on individuals (citizens of the United States) en- 
gaged in this very disturbance in Canada, with which the de- 
struction of the Caroline was connected. And it is in Mr. Fox's 
knowledge, also, that the act of Congress of March 10, 1838, 
was passed for the precise purpose of more effectually restrain- 
ing military enterprises from the United States into the British 
provinces, by authorizing the use of the most sure and decisive 
preventive means. The undersigned may add, that it stands 
on the admission of very high British authority, that during the 
recent Canadian troubles, although bodies of adventurers ap- 
peared on the border, making it necessary for the people of 
Canada to keep themselves in a state prepared for self-defense, 
yet that these adventurers were acting by no means in accord- 
ance with the feeling of the great mass of the American peo- 
ple, or of the government of the United States. 

This government, therefore, not only holds itself above re- 
proach in every thing respecting the preservation of neutral- 
ity, the observance of the principle of non-intervention, and the 
strictest conformity, in these respects, to the rules of internation- 
al law, but it doubts not that the world will do it the justice to 
acknowledge that it has set an example not unfit to be followed 
by others ; and that by its steady legislation on this most im- 
portant subject, it has done something to promote peace and 
good neighborhood among nations, and to advance the civiliza- 
tion of mankind. 



110 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

The undersigned trusts that when her Britannic majesty's 
government shall present the grounds at length on which they 
justify the local authorities of Canada in attacking and destroy- 
ing the "Caroline," they will consider that the laws of the United 
States are such as the undersigned has now represented them, 
and that the government of the United States has always man- 
ifested a sincere disposition to see those laws effectually and 
impartially administered. If there have been cases in which 
individuals, justly obnoxious to punishment, have escaped, this 
is no more than happens in regard to other laws. 

Under these circumstances, and under those immediately 
connected with the transaction itself, it will be for her majes- 
ty's government to show upon what state of facts and what 
rules of national law, the destruction of the "Caroline" is to be 
defended. It will be for that government to show a necessity 
of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of 
means, and no moment for deliberation. It will be for it to 
show, also, that the local authorities of Canada, even supposing 
the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the ter- 
ritories of the United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or 
excessive ; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-de- 
fense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly with- 
in it. It must be shown that admonition or remonstrance to 
the persons on board the "Caroline" was impracticable, or 
would have been unavailing. It must be shown that daylight 
could not be waited for ; that there could be no attempt at dis- 
crimination between the innocent and the guilty ; that it would 
not have been enough to seize and detain the vessel ; but that 
there was a necessity, present and inevitable, for attacking her 
in the darkness of the night, while moored to the shore, and 
while unarmed men were asleep on board, killing some and 
wounding others, and then drawing her into the current, above 
the cataract, setting her on fire, and, careless to know wheth- 
er there might not be in her the innocent with the guilty, or 
the living with the dead, committing her to a fate which fills 
the imagination with horror. A necessity for all this the 
government of the United States can not believe to have ex- 
isted. 

All will see that, if such things be allowed to occur, they 
must lead to bloody and exasperated war. And when an in- 
dividual comes into the United States from Canada, and to the 
very place on which this drama was performed, and there 
chooses to make public and vainglorious boast of the part he 
acted in it, it is hardly wonderful that great excitement should 
be created, and some degree of commotion arise. 

This republic does not wish to disturb the tranquillity of the 
world ; its object is peace, its policy peace. It seeks no ag- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. Ill 

grand izement by foreign conquest, because it knows that no 
foreign acquisitions could augment its power and importance 
so rapidly as they are already advancing by its own natural 
growth, under the propitious circumstances of its situation. 
But it can not admit that its government has not both the will and 
the power to preserve its own neutrality, and. to enforce the 
observances of its own laws upon its own citizens. It is jealous 
of its rights, and among others, and most especially, of the 
right of the absolute immunity of its territory against aggres- 
sion from abroad ; and these rights it is the duty and determin- 
ation of this government fully and at all times to maintain, 
while it will at the same time as scrupulously refrain from in- 
fringing on the rights of others. 

The President instructs the undersigned to say, in conclu- 
sion, that he confidently trusts that this and all other ques- 
tions of difference between the two governments will be treat- 
ed by both in the full exercise of such a spirit of candor, justice, 
and mutual respect, as shall give assurance of the long con- 
tinuance of peace between the two countries. 

The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to assure 
Mr. Fox of his high consideration. Daniel Webster. 

Henry S. Fox, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and 1 
Minister Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, SfC. $ 

Extract from the Message of the President to Congress at the 
commencement of the Second Session of the 21th Congress. 

I regret that it is not in my power to make known to you 
an equally satisfactory conclusion in the case of the " Caroline" 
steamer, with the circumstances connected with the destruction 
of which, in December, 1837, by an armed force fitted out in 
the province of Upper Canada, you are already made acquaint- 
ed. No such atonement as was due for the public wrong done 
to the United States by this invasion of her territory, so wholly 
irreconcilable with her rights as an independent power, has 
yet been made. In the view taken by this government, the 
inquiry whether the vessel was in the employment of those 
who were prosecuting an unauthorized war against that prov- 
ince, or was engaged by the owner in the business of trans- 
porting passengers to and from Navy Island, in hopes of pri- 
vate gain, which was most probably the case, in no degree 
alters the real question at issue between the two governments. 
This government can never concede to any foreign govern- 
ment the power, except in a case of the most urgent and ex- 
treme necessity, of invading its territory, either to arrest the 
persons or destroy the property of those who may have vio- 
lated the municipal laws of such foreign government, or have 
disregarded their obligations arising under the law of nations. 



112 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

The territory of the United States must be regarded as sacredly 
secure against all such invasions, until they shall voluntarily 
acknowledge inability to acquit themselves of their duties to 
others ; and in announcing this sentiment, I do but affirm a 
principle which no nation on earth would be more ready to 
vindicate, at all hazards, than the people and government of 
Great Britain. If, upon a full investigation of all the facts, it 
shall appear that the owner of the " Caroline" was governed 
by a hostile intent, or had made common cause with those who 
were in the occupancy of Navy Island, then, so far as he is 
concerned, there can be no claim to indemnity for the destruc- 
tion of his boat, which this government would feel itself bound 
to prosecute, since he would have acted not only in derogation 
of the rights of Great Britain, but in clear violation of the laws 
of the United States. But that is a question which, however 
settled, in no manner involves the higher consideration of the 
violation of territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction. To rec- 
ognize it as an admissible practice, that each government, in 
its turn, upon any sudden and unauthorized outbreak, which, 
on a frontier the extent of which renders it impossible for either 
to have an efficient force on every mile of it, and which out- 
break, therefore, neither may be able to suppress in a day, may 
take vengeance into its own hands, and without even a re- 
monstrance, and in the absence of any pressing or overruling 
necessity, may invade the territory of the other, would inevi- 
tably lead to results equally to be deplored by both. When 
border collisions come to receive the sanction, or to be made 
on the authority of either government, general war must be the 
inevitable result. While it is the ardent desire of the United 
States to cultivate the relations of peace with all nations, and 
to fulfill all the duties of good neighborhood toward those who 
possess territories adjoining their own, that very desire would 
lead them to deny the right of any foreign power to invade 
their boundary with an armed force. The correspondence 
between the two governments on this subject will, at a future 
day of your session, be submitted to your consideration ; and, 
in the mean time, I can not but indulge the hope that the British 
government will see the propriety of renouncing, as a rule of 
future action, the precedent which has been set in the affair at 
Schlosser. 

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 28, 1842. 

Sir, — In the course of our conferences on the several subjects 

of difference which it was the object of my mission to endeavor 

to settle, the unfortunate case of the Caroline, with its attendant 

consequences, could not escape our attention ; for although it 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 113 

is not of a description to be susceptible of any settlement by a 
convention or treaty, yet, being connected with the highest 
considerations of national honor and dignity, it has given rise 
at times to deep excitements, so as more than once to endan- 
ger the maintenance of peace. 

The note you did me the honor of addressing me on the 27th 
instant reminds me that, however disposed your government 
might be to be satisfied with the explanations which it has been 
my duty to offer, the natural anxiety of the public mind re- 
quires that these explanations should be more durably record- 
ed in our correspondence, and you send me a copy of your 
note to Mr. Fox, her Britannic majesty's minister here, and an 
extract from the speech of the President of the United States 
to Congress at the opening of the present session, as a ready 
mode of presenting the view entertained on this subject by the 
government of the United States. 

It is so far satisfactory to perceive that we are perfectly 
agreed as to the general principles of international law appli- 
cable to this unfortunate case. Respect for the inviolable 
character of the territory of independent nations is the most 
essential foundation of civilization. It is useless to strengthen 
a principle so generally acknowledged by any appeal to au- 
thorities on international law, and you may be assured, sir, that 
her majesty's government set the highest possible value on this 
principle, and are sensible of their duty to support it by their 
conduct and example, for the maintenance of peace and order 
in the world. If a sense of moral responsibility were not a 
sufficient security for their observance of this duty toward all 
nations, it will be readily believed that the most common dic- 
tates of interest and policy would lead to it in the case of a 
long conterminous boundary of some thousand miles, with a 
country of such great and growing power as the United 
States "of America, inhabited by a kindred race, gifted with 
all its activity, and all its susceptibility on points of national 
honor. 

Every consideration, therefore, leads us to set as highly as 
your government can possibly do, this paramount obligation of 
reciprocal respect for the independent territory of each. But 
however strong this duty may be, it is admitted by all writers, 
by all jurists, by the occasional practice of all nations, not ex- 
cepting your own, that a strong, overpowering necessity may 
arise, when this great principle may and must be suspended. 
It must be so for the shortest possible period, during the con- 
tinuance of an admitted overruling necessity, and strictly con- 
fined within the narrowest limits imposed by that necessity. 
Self-defense is the first law of our nature, and it must be recog- 
nized by every code which professes to regulate the condition 



114 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

and relations of man. Upon this modification, if I may so call 
it, of the great general principle, we seem also to be agreed ; 
and on this part of the subject I have done little more than re- 
peat the sentiments, though in less forcible language, admitted 
and maintained by you in the letter to which you refer me. 

Agreeing, therefore, on the general principle, and on the pos- 
sible exception to which it is liable, the only question between 
us is whether this occurrence came within the limits fairly to 
be assigned to such exception — whether, to use your words, 
there was "that necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelm- 
ing, leaving no choice of means," which preceded the destruc- 
tion of the Caroline while moored to the shore of the United 
States. Give me leave to say, sir, with all possible admiration 
of your very ingenious discussion of the general principles 
which are supposed to govern the right and practice of inter- 
ference by the people of one country in the wars and quarrels 
of others, that this part of your argument is little applicable to 
our immediate case. If Great Britain, America, or any other 
country suffer their people to fit out expeditions to take part in 
distant quarrels, such conduct may, according to the circum- 
stances of each case, be justly matter of complaint ; and per- 
haps these transactions have generally been in late times too 
much overlooked or connived at. But the case we are consid- 
ering is of a wholly different description, and may be best de- 
termined by answering the following question : Supposing a 
man standing on ground where you have no legal right to fol- 
low him, has a weapon long enough to reach you, and is strik- 
ing you down and endangering your life, how long are you 
bound to wait for the assistance of the authority having the le- 
gal power to relieve you? or, to bring the facts more imme- 
diately home to the case, if cannon are moving and setting up 
in a battery which can reach you, and are actually destroying 
life and property by their fire, if you have remonstrated for 
some time without effect, and see no prospect of relief, when 
begins your right to defend yourself, should you have no other 
means of doing so than by seizing your assailant on the verge 
of a neutral territory ? 

I am unwilling to recall to your recollection the particulars 
of this case, but I am obliged very shortly to do so, to show 
what was, at the time, the extent of the existing justification ; for 
upon this entirely depends the question whether a gross insult 
has or has not been offered to the government and people of 
the United States. 

After some tumultuous proceedings in Upper Canada, which 
were of short duration, and were suppressed by the militia of 
the country, the persons criminally concerned in them took 
refuge in the neighboring state of New York, and, with a very 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 115 

large addition to their numbers openly collected, invaded the 
Canadian territory, taking possession of Navy Island. 

This invasion took place on the 16th of December, 1837 ; a 
gradual accession of numbers and of military ammunition con- 
tinued openly, and though under the sanction of no public au- 
thority, at least with no public hinderance, until the 29th of the 
same month, when several hundred men were collected, and 
twelve pieces of ordnance, which could only have been pro- 
cured from some public store or arsenal, were actually mount- 
ed on Navy Island, and were used to fire within easy range 
upon the unoffending inhabitants of the opposite shore. Re- 
monstrances, wholly ineffectual, were made ; so ineffectual, in- 
deed, that a militia regiment, stationed on the neighboring 
American island, looked on without any attempt at interfer- 
ence, while shots were fired from the American island itself. 
This important fact stands on the best American authority, be- 
ing stated in a letter to Mr. Forsyth, of the 6th of February, 
1838, of Mr. Benton, attorney of the United States, the gentle- 
man sent by your government to inquire into the facts of the 
case, who adds, very properly, that he makes the statement 
" with deep regret and mortification." 

This force, formed of all the reckless and mischievous peo- 
ple of the border, formidable from their numbers and from 
their armament, had in their pay, and as part of their establish- 
ment, this steam-boat Caroline, the important means and instru- 
ment by which numbers and arms were hourly increasing. I 
might safely put it to any candid man acquainted with the ex- 
isting state of things, to say whether the military commander 
in Canada had the remotest reason, on the 29th of December, 
to expect to be relieved from this state of suffering by the pro- 
tective intervention of any American authority. How long 
could a government having the paramount duty of protecting 
its own people be reasonably expected to wait for what they 
had then no reason to expect? What would have been the 
conduct of American officers 1 what has been their conduct 
under circumstances much less aggravated ? I would appeal 
to you, sir, to say whether the facts which you say would 
alone justify this act, viz., " a necessity of self-defense^ instant, 
overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment 
for deliberation," were not applicable to this case in as high a 
degree as they ever were to any case of a similar description 
in the history of nations. 

Nearly five years are now past since this occurrence ; there 
has been time for the public to deliberate upon it calmly, and I 
believe I may take it to be the opinion of candid and honorable 
men that the British officers who executed this transaction, and 
their government who approved it, intended no slight or disre- 



116 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

spect to the sovereign authority of the United States. That 
they intended no such disrespect I can most solemnly affirm, 
and I trust it will be admitted that no inference to the contrary 
can fairly be drawn, even by the most susceptible on points of 
national honor. 

Notwithstanding my wish that the explanation I had to make 
might not revive in any degree any feelings of irritation, I do 
not see how I could treat this subject without this short recital 
of facts, because the proof that no disrespect was intended is 
mainly to be looked for in the extent of the justification. 

There remains only a point or two which I should wish to 
notice, to remove in some degree the impression which your 
rather highly-colored description of this transaction is calculated 
to make. The mode of telling a story often tends to distort 
facts, and in this case more than in any other it is important 
to arrive at plain, unvarnished truth. 

It appears from every account that the expedition was sent 
to capture the Caroline when she was expected to be found on 
the British ground of Navy Island, and that it was only owing 
to the orders of the rebel leader being disobeyed that she was 
not so found. When the British officer came round the point 
of the island in the night, he first discovered that the vessel was 
moored to the other shore. He was not by this deterred from 
making the capture, and his conduct w r as approved. But you 
will perceive that there was here, most decidedly, the case of 
justification mentioned in your note, that there should be "no 
moment left for deliberation." I mention this circumstance to 
show, also, that the expedition was not planned with a pre- 
meditated purpose of attacking the enemy within the jurisdic- 
tion of the United States, but that the necessity of so doing 
arose from altered circumstances at the moment of execution. 

I have only further to notice the highly-colored picture 
drawn in your note of the facts attending the execution of this 
service. Some importance is attached to the attack having 
been made in the night, and the vessel having been set on fire 
and floated down the falls of the river ; and it is insinuated, 
rather than asserted, that there was carelessness as to the lives 
of the persons on board. The account given by the distin- 
guished officer who commanded the expedition distinctly re- 
futes, or satisfactorily explains these assertions. The time of 
night was purposely selected as most likely to insure the execu- 
tion with the least loss of life ; and it is expressly stated that, 
the strength of the current not permitting the vessel to be car- 
ried off, and it being necessary to destroy her by fire, she was 
drawn into the stream for the express purpose of preventing 
injury to persons or property of the inhabitants at Schlosser. 
I would willingly have abstained from a return to the facts 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 117 

of this transaction — my duty being to offer those explanations 
and assurances which may lead to satisfy the public mind, and 
to the cessation of all angry feeling — but it appeared to me that 
some explanation of parts of the case, apparently misunder- 
stood, might be of service for this purpose. 

Although it is believed that a candid and impartial considera- 
tion of the whole history of this unfortunate event will lead to 
the conclusion that there were grounds of justification as strong 
as were ever presented in such cases, and, above all, that no 
slight of the authority of the United States was ever intended, 
yet it must be admitted that there was, in the hurried execution 
of this necessary service, a violation of territory ; and I am in- 
structed to assure you that her majesty's government consider 
this as a most serious fact, and that, far from thinking that an 
event of this kind should be lightly risked, they would unfeign- 
edly deprecate its recurrence. Looking back to what passed 
at this distance of time, what is, perhaps, most to be regretted 
is, that some explanation and apology for this occurrence was 
not immediately made ; this, with a frank explanation of the 
necessity of the case, might and probably would have prevent- 
ed much of the exasperation, and of the subsequent complaints 
and recriminations to which it gave rise. 

There are possible cases in the relations of nations, as of in- 
dividuals, where necessity, which controls all other laws, may 
be pleaded ; but it is neither easy nor safe to attempt to define 
the rights or limits properly assignable to such a plea. This 
must always be a subject of much delicacy, and should be con- 
sidered by friendly nations with great candor and forbearance. 
The intentions of the parties must mainly be looked to ; and 
can it for a moment be supposed that Great Britain would inten- 
tionally and wantonly provoke a great and powerful neighbor? 

Her majesty's government earnestly desire that a reciprocal 
respect for the independent jurisdiction and authority of neigh- 
boring states may be considered among the first duties of all 
governments ; and I have to repeat the assurance of regret 
they feel that the event of which I am treating should have dis- 
turbed the harmony they so anxiously wish to maintain with 
the American people and government. 

Connected with these transactions there have also been cir- 
cumstances of which, I believe, it is generally admitted that 
Great Britain has also had just ground to complain. Individuals 
have been made personally liable for acts done under the 
avowed authority of their government ; and there are now 
many brave men exposed to personal consequences for no other 
cause than having served their country. That this is contrary 
to every principle of international law it is useless for me to in- 
sist. Indeed, it has been admitted by every authority of your 



118 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

government ; but, owing to a conflict of laws, difficulties have 
intervened, much to the regret of those authorities, in giving 
practical effect to these principles ; and for these difficulties 
some remedy has been by all desired. It is no business of mine 
to enter upon the consideration of them, nor have I sufficient 
information for the purpose ; but I trust you will excuse my 
addressing to you the inquiry whether the government of the 
United States is now in a condition to secure, in effect and in 
practice, the principle which has never been denied in argu- 
ment, that individuals acting under legitimate authority are not 
personally responsible for executing the orders of their govern- 
ment ? That the power, when it exists, will be used on every 
fit occasion, I am well assured ; and I am bound to admit that, 
looking through the voluminous correspondence concerning 
these transactions, there appears no indisposition with any of 
the authorities of the Federal government, under its several ad- 
ministrations, to do justice in this respect in as far as their 
means and powers would allow. 

I trust, sir, I may now be permitted to hope that all feelings 
of resentment and ill-will resulting from these truly unfortunate 
events may be buried in oblivion, and that they may be suc- 
ceeded by those of harmony and friendship, which it is certainly 
the interest, and, I also believe, the inclination of all to promote. 

I beg, sir, you will be assured of my high and unfeigned con- 
sideration. Ashburton. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, &c, &c, &c. 

Mr. Webster to hord Ashburton. 

Department of State, Washington, August 6, 1842. 

Your lordship's note of the 28th of July, in answer to mine 
of the 27th, respecting the case of the " Caroline," has been re- 
ceived and laid before the President. 

The President sees with pleasure that your lordship fully ad- 
mits those great principles of public law, applicable to cases of 
this kind, which this government has expressed ; and that on 
your part, as on ours, respect for the inviolable character of 
the territory of independent states is the most essential foun- 
dation of civilization. And while it is admitted on both sides 
that there are exceptions to this rule, he is gratified to find that 
your lordship admits that such exceptions must come within 
the limitations stated and the terms used in a former commu- 
nication from this department to the British plenipotentiary 
here. Undoubtedly it is just, that while it is admitted that ex- 
ceptions growing out of the great law of self-defense do exist, 
those exceptions should be confined to cases in which the "ne- 
cessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leav- 
ing no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 119 

Understanding these principles alike, the difference between 
the two governments is only whether the facts in the case of 
the M Caroline" make out a case of such necessity for the pur- 
pose of self-defense. Seeing that the transaction is not recent, 
having happened in the time of one of his predecessors; seeing 
that your lordship, in the name of your government, solemnly 
declares that no slight or disrespect was intended to the sov- 
ereign authority of the United States ; seeing that it is ac- 
knowledged that, whether justifiable or not, there was yet a vio- 
lation of the territory of the United States, and that you are in- 
structed to say that your government consider that as a most 
serious occurrence; seeing, finally, that it is now admitted that 
an explanation and apology for this violation was due at the 
time, the President is content to receive these acknowledg- 
ments and assurances in the conciliatory spirit which marks 
your lordship's letter, and will make this subject, as a com- 
plaint of violation of territory, the topic of no further discussion 
between the two governments. 

As to that part of your lordship's note which relates to other 
occurrences springing out of the case of the " Caroline," with 
which occurrences the name of Alexander M'Leod has become 
connected, I have to say that the government of the United 
States entirely adheres to the sentiments and opinions express- 
ed in the communications from this department to Mr. Fox. 
This government has admitted that for an act committed by 
the command of his sovereign, jure belli, an individual can not 
be responsible in the ordinary courts of another state. It would 
regard it as a high indignity if a citizen of its own, acting un- 
der its authority and by its special command, in such cases were 
held to answer in a municipal tribunal, and to undergo punish- 
ment, as if the behest of his government were no defense or 
protection to him. 

But your lordship is aware that in regular constitutional gov- 
ernments persons arrested on charges of high crimes can only 
be discharged by some judicial proceeding. It is so in En- 
gland; it is so in the colonies and provinces of England. The 
forms of judicial proceeding differ in different countries, being 
more rapid in some and more dilatory in others ; and it may 
be added, generally more dilatory, or, at least, more cautious 
in cases affecting life in governments of a strictly limited than 
in those of a more unlimited character. It was a subject of re- 
gret that the release of M'Leod was so long delayed. A state 
court, and that not of the highest jurisdiction, decided that, on 
summary application, embarrassed, as it would appear, by tech- 
nical difficulties, he could not be released by that court. His 
discharge shortly afterward by a jury, to whom he preferred 
to submit his case, rendered unnecessary the further prosecu- 



120 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

tion of the legal question. It is for the Congress of the United 
States, whose attention has been called to the subject, to say 
what further provision ought to be made to expedite proceed- 
ings in such cases ; and, in answer to your lordship's question 
toward the close of your note, I have to say that the govern- 
ment of the United States holds itself not only fully disposed, 
but fully competent to carry into practice every principle which 
it avows or acknowledges, and to fulfill every duty and obliga- 
tion which it owes to foreign governments, their citizens, or 
subjects. 

I have the honor to be, my lord, with great consideration, 
vour obedient servant, Daniel Webster. 

Lord Ashburton, &C M &c, &c. 



THE CASE OF ALEXANDER M'LEOD. 

Extract from the Message of the President of the United States, 

June 1, 1841. 

A correspondence has taken place between the Secretary 
of State and the minister of her Britannic majesty accredited 
to this government, on the subject of Alexander M'Leod's in- 
dictment and imprisonment, copies of which are herewith com- 
municated to Congress. 

In addition to what appears from these papers, it may be 
proper to state that Alexander M'Leod has been heard by the 
Supreme Court of the State of New York on his motion to be 
discharged from imprisonment, and that the decision of that 
court has not as yet been pronounced. 

Mr. Fox to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, March 12, 1841. 

The undersigned, her Britannic majesty's envoy extraordi- 
nary and minister plenipotentiary, is instructed by his govern- 
ment to make the following official communication to the gov- 
ernment of the United States : 

Her majesty's government have had under their consider- 
ation the correspondence which took place at Washington in 
December last between the United States Secretary of State, 
Mr. Forsyth, and the undersigned, comprising two official let- 
ters from" the undersigned to Mr. Forsyth, dated the 13th and 
29th of December, and two official letters from Mr. Forsyth to 
the undersigned, dated the 26th and 30th of the same month, 
upon the subject of the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Alex- 
ander M'Leod, of Upper Canada, by the authorities of the 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS 121 

State of New York, upon a pretended charge of arson and 
murder, as having been engaged in the capture and destruction 
of the steam-boat Caroline on the 29th of December, 1837. 

The undersigned is directed, in the first place, to make known 
to the government of the United States that her majesty's gov- 
ernment entirely approve of the course pursued by the under- 
signed in that correspondence, and of the language adopted by 
him in the official letters above mentioned. 

And the undersigned is now instructed again to demand from 
the government of the United States, formally, in the name of 
the British government, the immediate release of Mr. Alex- 
ander M'Leod. 

The grounds upon which the British government make this 
demand & upon the government of the United States are these : 
that the transaction on account of which Mr. M'Leod has been 
arrested, and is to be put upon his trial, was a transaction of a 
public character, planned and executed by persons duly em- 
powered by her majesty's colonial authorities to take any steps 
and to do any acts which might be necessary for the defense 
of her majesty's territories and for the protection of her majesty's 
subjects ; and that, consequently, those subjects of her majesty 
who engaged in that transaction were performing an act of 
public d°uty for which they can not be made personally and in- 
dividually answerable to the laws and tribunals of any foreign 

country. , 

The transaction in question may have been, as her majesty s 
government are of opinion that it was, a justifiable employment 
of force for the purpose of defending the British territory from 
the unprovoked attack of a band of British rebels and American 
pirates, who, having been permitted to arm and organize them- 
selves within the territory of the United States, had actually 
invaded and occupied a portion of the territory of her majesty; 
or it may have been, as alleged by Mr. Forsyth, in his note to 
the undersigned of the 26th of December, " a most unjustifiable 
invasion, in lime of peace, of the territory of the United States." 
But this is a question especially of a political and international 
kind, which can be discussed and settled only between the two 
governments, and which the courts of justice of the State of 
New York can not by possibility have any means of judging 
or anv right of deciding. -. 

It would be contrary to the universal practice ot civilized 
nations to fix individual responsibility upon persons who, with 
the sanction or by the orders of the constituted authorities ot 
a state, engaged in military or naval enterprises in their coun- 
try's cause; and it is obvious that the introduction ot such a 
principle would aggravate beyond measure the miseries, and 
would frightfully increase the demoralizing effects ot war, by 



122 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

mixing up with national exasperation the ferocity of personal 
passions, and the cruelty and bitterness of individual revenge. 

Her majesty's government can not believe that the govern- 
ment of the United States can really intend to set an example 
so fraught with evil to the community of nations, and the di- 
rect tendency of which must be to bring back into the practice 
of modern war atrocities which civilization and Christianity 
have long since banished. 

Neither can her majesty's government admit for a moment 
the validity of the doctrine advanced by Mr. Forsyth, that the 
Federal government of the United States has no power to in- 
terfere in the matter in question, and that the decision thereof 
must rest solely and entirely with the State of New York. 

With the particulars of the internal compact which may ex- 
ist between the several states that compose the Union, foreign 
powers have nothing to do; the relations of foreign powers 
are with the aggregate Union ; that Union is to them repre- 
sented by the Federal government ; and of that Union the 
Federal government is to them the only organ. Therefore, 
when a foreign power has redress to demand for a wrong 
done to it by any state of the Union, it is to the Federal gov- 
ernment, and not to the separate state, that such power must 
look for redress for that wrong. And such foreign power can 
not admit the plea that the separate state is an independent 
body over which the Federal government has no control. It 
is obvious that such a doctrine, if admitted, would at once go 
to a dissolution of the Union as far as its relations with foreign 
powers are concerned ; and that foreign powers, in such case, 
instead of accrediting diplomatic agents to the Federal govern- 
ment, would send such agents, not to that government, but to 
the government of each separate state, and would make their 
relations of peace and war with each state depend upon the 
result of their separate intercourse with such state, without 
reference to the relations they might have with the rest. 

Her majesty's government apprehend that the above is not 
the conclusion at which the government of the United States 
intend to arrive ; yet such is the conclusion to which the argu- 
ments that have been advanced by Mr. Forsyth necessarily lead. 

But, be that as it may, her majesty's government formally 
demand, upon the grounds already stated, the immediate re- 
lease of Mr. M'Leod ; and her majesty's government entreat the 
President of the United States to take into his most deliberate 
consideration the serious nature of the consequences which 
must ensue from a rejection of this demand. 

The United States government will perceive that, in de- 
manding Mr. M'Leod's release, her majesty's government ar- 
gue upon the assumption that he was one of the persons en- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 123 

gaged in the capture of the steam-boat " Caroline ;" but her 
majesty's government have the strongest reasons for being 
convinced that Mr. M'Leod was not, in fact, engaged in that 
transaction ; and the undersigned is hereupon instructed to say- 
that, although the circumstance itself makes no difference in 
the political and international question at issue, and although 
her majesty's government do not demand Mr. M'Leod's re- 
lease upon the ground that he was not concerned in the cap- 
ture of the " Caroline," but upon the ground that the capture 
of the " Caroline" was a transaction of a public character, for 
which the persons engaged in it can not incur private and per- 
sonal responsibility ; yet the government of the United States 
must not disguise from themselves that the fact that Mr. M'Leod 
was not engaged in the transaction must necessarily tend great- 
ly to inflame that national resentment which any harm that 
shall be suffered by Mr. M'Leod at the hands of the authorities 
of the State of New York will infallibly excite throughout the 
whole of the British empire. 

The undersigned, in addressing the present official com- 
munication, by order of his government, to Mr. Webster, 
Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to offer 
him the assurance of his distinguished consideration. 

H. S. Fox. 

The Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox. 

Department of State, Washington, April 24, 1841. 

The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, 
has the honor to inform Mr. Fox, envoy extraordinary and min- 
ister plenipotentiary of her Britannic majesty, that his note of 
the 12th of March was received and laid before the President. 

Circumstances well known to Mr. Fox have necessarily de- 
layed for some days the consideration of that note. 

The undersigned has the honor now to say, that it has been 
fully considered, and that he has been directed by the Presi- 
dent to address to Mr. Fox the following reply. 

Mr. Fox informs the government of the United States that 
he is instructed to make known to it that the government of 
her majesty entirely approve the course pursued by him in his 
correspondence with Mr. Forsyth in December last, and the 
language adopted by him on that occasion ; and that that gov- 
ernment have instructed him "again to demand from the gov- 
ernment of the United States, formally, in the name ot the 
British government, the immediate release of Mr. Alexander 
M'Leod ;" that " the grounds upon which the British govern- 
ment make this demand upon the government of the United 
States are these : that the transaction on account of which Mr. 



124 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

M'Leod has been arrested, and is to be put upon his trial, was 
a transaction of a public character, planned and executed by 
persons duly empowered by her majesty's colonial authorities 
to take any steps and to do any acts which might be necessary 
for the defense of her majesty's territories, and for the protec- 
tion of her majesty's subjects ; and that, consequently, those 
subjects of her majesty who engaged in that transaction were 
performing an act of public duty, for which they can not be 
made personally and individually answerable to the laws and 
tribunals of any foreign country." 

The President is not certain that he understands precisely 
the meaning intended by her majesty's government to be con- 
veyed by the foregoing instruction. 

This doubt has occasioned with the President some hesita- 
tion ; but he inclines to take it for granted that the main pur- 
pose of the instruction was, to cause it to be signified to the 
government of the United States that the attack on the steam- 
boat " Caroline" was an act of public force, done by the Brit- 
ish colonial authorities, and fully recognized by the queen's 
government at home ; and that, consequently, no individual 
concerned in that transaction can, according to the just princi- 
ple of the laws of nations, be held personally answerable in the 
ordinary courts of law as for a private offense ; and that upon 
this avowal of her majesty's government, Alexander M'Leod, 
now imprisoned on an indictment for murder alleged to have 
been committed in that attack, ought to be released by such 
proceedings as are usual and are suitable to the case. 

The President adopts the conclusion that nothing more than 
this could have been intended to be expressed, from the con- 
sideration that her majesty's government must be fully aware 
that in the United States, as in England, persons confined un- 
der judicial process can be released from that confinement only 
by judicial process. In neither country, as the undersigned 
supposes, can the arm of the executive power interfere, direct- 
ly or forcibly, to release or deliver the prisoner. His discharge 
must be sought in a maimer conformable to the principles of 
law, and the proceedings of courts of judicature. If an indict- 
ment, like that which has been found against Alexander M'Leod, 
and under circumstances like those which belong to his case, 
were pending against an individual in one of the courts of En- 
gland, there is no doubt that the law-officer of the crown might 
enter a nolle prosequi, or that the prisoner might cause himself 
to be brought up on habeas corpus, and discharged if his ground 
of discharge should be adjudged sufficient, or that he might 
prove the same facts and insist on the same defense or exemp- 
tion on his trial. 

All these are legal modes of proceeding, well known to the 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 125 

laws and practice of both countries. But the undersigned does 
not suppose that if such a case were to arise in England, the 
power of the executive government could be exerted in any 
more direct manner. Even in the case of embassadors, and 
other public ministers whose right of exemption from arrest is 
personal, requiring no fact to be ascertained but the mere fact 
of diplomatic character, and to arrest whom is sometimes made 
a highly penal offense, if the arrest be actually made, it can 
only°be discharged by application to the courts of law. 

It is understood that Alexander M'Leod is holden as well on 
civil as on criminal process, for acts alleged to have been done 
by him in the attack on the " Caroline ;" and his defense, or 
ground of acquittal, must be the same in both cases. And this 
strongly illustrates, as the undersigned conceives, the propriety 
of the foregoing observations ; since it is quite clear that the 
executive government can not interfere to arrest a civil suit 
between private parties in any stage of its progress ; but that 
such suit must go on to its regular judicial termination. If, 
therefore, any course different from such as have been now 
mentioned was in contemplation of her majesty's government, 
something would seem to have been expected from the gov- 
ernment of the United States as little conformable to the laws 
and usages of the English government as to those of the United 
States, and to which this government can not accede. 

The government of the United States, therefore, acting upon 
the presumption, which it readily adopted, that nothing extra- 
ordinary or unusual was expected or requested of it, decided, 
on the reception of Mr. Fox's note, to take such measures as 
the occasion and its own duty appeared to require. 

In his note to Mr. Fox of the 26th of December last, Mr. 
Forsyth, the Secretary of State of the United States, observes, 
that " if the destruction of the ' Caroline' was a public act of 
persons in her majesty's service, obeying the order of their su- 
perior authorities, this fact has not been before communicated 
to the government of the United States by a person authorized 
to make the admission ; and it will be for the court which has 
taken cognizance of the offense with which Mr. M'Leod is 
charged to decide upon its validity when legally established 
before it." And adds, " the President deems this to be a prop- 
er occasion to remind the government of her Britannic majes- 
ty, that the case of the 'Caroline' has been long since brought 
to the attention of her majesty's principal Secretary of State 
for Foreign Affairs, who up to this day has not communica- 
ted its decision thereupon. It is hoped that the government ot 
her majesty will perceive the importance of no longer leaving 
the government of the United States uninformed of its views 
and intentions upon a subject which has naturally produced 



126 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

much exasperation, and which has led to such grave conse- 
quences." 

The communication of the fact that the destruction of the 
" Caroline" was an act of public force by the British authori- 
ties, being formally made to the government of the United 
States by Mr. Fox's note, the case assumes a decided aspect. 

The government of the United States entertains no doubt 
that, after this avowal of the transaction as a public transac- 
tion, authorized and undertaken by the British authorities, in- 
dividuals concerned in it ought not, by the principles of public 
law and the general usage of civilized states, to be holden per- 
sonally responsible in the ordinary tribunals of law for their 
participation in it. And the President presumes that it can 
hardly be necessary to say that the American people, not dis- 
trustful of their ability to redress public wrongs by public 
means, can not desire the punishment of individuals when the 
act complained of is declared to have been an act of the gov- 
ernment itself. 

Soon after the date of Mr. Fox's note, an instruction was 
given to the Attorney-general of the United States from this 
department, by direction of the President, which fully sets forth 
the opinions of this government on the subject of M'Leod's im- 
prisonment, a copy of which instruction the undersigned has 
the honor herewith to inclose. 

The indictment against M'Leod is pending in a state court, 
but his rights, whatever they may be, are no less safe, it is to 
be presumed, than if he were holden to answer in one of the 
courts of this government. 

He demands immunity from personal responsibility by vir- 
tue of the law of nations, and that law in civilized states is to 
be respected in all courts. None is either so high or so low as 
to escape from its authority in cases to which its rules and prin- 
ciples apply. 

This department has been regularly informed by his Excel- 
lency the Governor of the State of New York, that the chief 
justice of that state was assigned to preside at the hearing and 
trial of M'Leod's case, but that, owing to some error or mis- 
take in the process of summoning the jury, the hearing was 
necessarily deferred. The President regrets this occurrence, 
as he has a desire for a speedy disposition of the subject. The 
council for M'Leod have requested authentic evidence of the 
avowal by the British government of the attack on and de- 
struction of the "Caroline," as acts done under its authority, 
and such evidence will be furnished to them by this department. 
It is understood that the indictment has been removed into 
the Supreme Court of the State by the proper proceeding for 
that purpose, and that it is now competent for M'Leod, by the 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 127 

ordinary process of habeas corpus, to bring his case for hearing 
before that tribunal. 

The undersigned hardly needs to assure Mr. Fox, that a tri- 
bunal so eminently distinguished for ability and learning as the 
Supreme Court of the State of New York, may be safely re- 
lied upon for the just and impartial administration of the law in 
this as well as in other cases ; and the undersigned repeats the 
expression of the desire of this government that no delay may 
be suffered to take place in these proceedings which can be 
avoided. Of this desire, Mr. Fox will see evidence in the in- 
structions above referred to. 

The undersigned has now to signify to Mr. Fox that the gov- 
ernment of the United States has not changed the opinion 
which it has heretofore expressed to her majesty's government 
of the character of the act of destroying the " Caroline." 

It does not think that that transaction can be justified by any 
reasonable application or construction of the right of self-de- 
fense under the laws of nations. It is admitted that a just right 
of self-defense attaches always to nations as well as to individ- 
uals, and is equally necessary for the preservation of both. But 
the extent of this right is a question to be judged of by the cir- 
cumstances of each particular case ; and when its alleged ex- 
ercise has led to the commission of hostile acts within the ter- 
ritory of a power at peace, nothing less than a clear and abso- 
lute necessity can afford ground of justification. Not having 
up to this time been made acquainted with the views and rea- 
sons at length which have led her majesty's government to 
think the destruction of the " Caroline" justifiable as an act of 
self-defense, the undersigned, earnestly renewing the remon- 
strance of this government against the transaction, abstains for 
the present from any extended discussion of the question. But 
it is deemed proper, nevertheless, not to omit to take some no- 
tice of the general grounds of justification stated by her majes- 
ty's government in their instruction to Mr. Fox. 

Her majesty's government have instructed Mr. Fox to say, 
that they are of opinion that the transaction which terminated 
in the destruction of the "Caroline" was a justifiable employ- 
ment of force for the purpose of defending the British territory 
from the unprovoked attack of a band of British rebels and 
American pirates, who, having been " permitted" to arm and 
organize themselves within the territory of the United States, 
had actually invaded a portion of the territory of her majesty. 

The President can not suppose that her majesty's govern- 
ment, by the use of these terms, meant to be understood as in- 
timating that those acts, violating the laws of the United States 
and disturbing the peace of the British territories, were done 
under any degree of countenance from this government, or 



128 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

were regarded by it with indifference, or that, under the cir- 
cumstances of the case, they could have been prevented by the 
ordinary course of proceeding. Although he regrets, that, by 
using the term "permitted," a possible inference of that kind 
might be raised; yet such an inference, the President is willing 
to believe, would be quite unjust to the intentions of the British 
government. 

That on a line of frontier such as separates the United States 
from her Britannic majesty's North American provinces — a 
line long enough to divide the whole of Europe into halves — 
irregularities, violences, and conflicts should sometimes occur, 
equally against the will of both governments, is certainly easily 
to be supposed. This may be more possible, perhaps, in re- 
gard to the United States, without any reproach to their gov- 
ernment, since their institutions entirely discourage the keep- 
ing up of large standing armies in time of peace, and their situ- 
ation happily exempts them from the necessity of maintaining 
such expensive and dangerous establishments. All that can 
be expected from either government, in these cases, is good 
faith, a sincere desire to preserve peace and do justice, the use 
of all proper means of prevention, and that, if offenses can not, 
nevertheless, be always prevented, the offenders shall still be 
justly punished. In all these respects, this government ac- 
knowledges no delinquency in the performance of its duties. 

Her majesty's government are pleased, also, to speak of those 
American citizens who took part with persons in Canada, en- 
gaged in an insurrection against the British government, as 
"American pirates." The undersigned does not admit the 
propriety or justice of this designation. If citizens of the 
United States fitted out, or were engaged in fitting out, a mili- 
tary expedition from the United States, intended to act against 
the British government in Canada, they were clearly violating 
the laws of their own country, and exposing themselves to the 
just consequences which might be inflicted on them if taken 
within the British dominions. But, notwithstanding this, they 
were certainly not pirates, nor does the undersigned think that 
it can advance the purpose of fair and friendly discussion, or 
hasten the accommodation of national difficulties, so to de- 
nominate them. Their offense, whatever it was, had no anal- 
ogy to cases of piracy. Supposing all that is alleged against 
them to be true, they were taking a part in what they regarded 
as a civil war, and they were taking a part on the side of the 
rebels. Surely England herself has not regarded persons thus 
engaged as deserving the appellation which her majesty's gov- 
ernment bestows on these citizens of the United States. 

It is quite notorious that, for the greater part of the last 
two centuries, subjects of the British crown have been permit- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 129 

ted to engage in foreign wars, both national and civil, and in 
the latter in every stage of their progress ; and yet it has not 
been imagined that England has at any time allowed her sub- 
jects to turn pirates. Indeed, in our own times, not only have 
individual subjects of that crown gone abroad to engage in 
civil wars, but we have seen whole regiments openly recruit- 
ed, embodied, armed, and disciplined in England, with the 
avowed purpose of aiding a rebellion against a nation with 
which England was at peace ; although it is true that, sub- 
sequently, an act of Parliament was passed to prevent transac- 
tions so nearly approaching to public war, without license from 
the crown. 

It may be said that there is a difference between the case of 
a civil war arising from a disputed succession, or a protracted 
revolt of a colony against the mother country, and the case of 
a fresh outbreak, or commencement of a rebellion. The un- 
dersigned does not deny that such distinction may, for certain 
purposes, be deemed well founded. He admits that a govern- 
ment, called upon to consider its own rights, interests, and 
duties, when civil wars break out in other countries, may de- 
cide on all the circumstances of the particular case upon its 
own existing stipulations, on probable results, on what its own 
security requires, and on many other considerations. It may 
be already bound to assist one party, or it may become bound, 
if it so chooses, to assist the other, and to meet the conse- 
quences of such assistance. 

But whether the revolt be recent or long continued, they 
who join those concerned in it, whatever may be their of- 
fense against their own country, or however they may be 
treated, if taken with arms in their hands in the territory of the 
government against which the standard of revolt is raised, can 
not be denominated pirates without departing from all ordinary 
use of language in the definition of offenses. A cause which 
has so foul an origin as piracy can not, in its progress or by 
its success, obtain a claim to any degree of respectability or 
tolerance among nations ; and civil wars, therefore, are not 
understood to have such a commencement. 

It is well known to Mr. Fox that authorities of the highest 
eminence in England, living and dead, have maintained that 
the general law of nations does not forbid the citizens or sub- 
jects of one government from taking part in the civil commo- 
tions of another. There is some reason, indeed, to think that 
such may be the opinion of her majesty's government at the 
present moment. 

The undersigned has made these remarks from the convic- 
tion that it is important to regard established distinctions, and 
to view the acts and offenses of individuals in the exactly 

I 



130 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

proper light. But it is not to be inferred that there is, on the 
part of this government, any purpose of extenuating in the 
slightest degree the crimes of those persons, citizens of the 
United States, who have joined in military expeditions against 
the British government in Canada. On the contrary, the Pres- 
ident directs the undersigned to say that it is his fixed resolu- 
tion that all such disturbers of the national peace, and violators 
of the laws of their country, shall be brought to exemplary 
punishment. Nor will the fact that they are instigated and led 
on to these excesses by British subjects, refugees from the 
provinces, be deemed any excuse or palliation ; although it is 
well worthy of being remembered that the prime movers of 
these disturbances on the borders are subjects of the queen, 
who come within the territories of the United States, seeking 
to enlist the sympathies of their citizens by all the motives 
which they are able to address to them on account of griev- 
ances, real or imaginary. There is no reason to believe that 
the design of any hostile movement from the United States 
against Canada has commenced with citizens of the United 
States. The true origin of such purposes and such enterprises 
is on the other side of the line. But the President's resolution 
to prevent these transgressions of the law is not, on that ac- 
count, the less strong. It is taken, not only in conformity to 
his duty under the provisions of existing laws, but in full con- 
sonance with the established principles and practice of this 
government. 

The government of the United States has not, from the first, 
fallen into the doubts, elsewhere entertained, of the true extent 
of the duties of neutrality. It has held that, however it may 
have been in less enlightened ages, the just interpretation of the 
modern law of nations is, that neutral states are bound to be 
strictly neutral ; and that it is a manifest and gross impropriety 
for individuals to engage in the civil conflicts of other states, 
and thus to be at war while their government is at peace. 
War and peace are high national relations, which can proper- 
ly be established or changed only by nations themselves. 

The United States have thought, also, that the salutary doc- 
trine of non-intervention by one nation with the affairs of oth- 
ers is liable to be essentially impaired if, while government re- 
frains from interference, interference is still allowed to its sub- 
jects, individually or in masses. It may happen, indeed, that 
persons choose to leave their country, emigrate to other re- 
gions, and settle themselves on uncultivated lands, in territo- 
ries belonging to other states. This can not be prevented by 
governments which allow the emigration of their subjects and 
citizens ; and such persons, having voluntarily abandoned their 
own country, have no longer claim to its protection, nor is it 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 131 

longer responsible for their acts. Such cases, therefore, if they 
occur, show no abandonment of the duty of neutrality. 

The government of the United States has not considered it 
as sufficient to confine the duties of neutrality and non-inter- 
ference to the case of governments whose territories lie adja- 
cent to each other. The application of the principle may be 
more necessary in such cases, but the principle itself they re- 
gard as being the same, if those territories be divided by half 
the globe. The rule is founded in the impropriety and danger 
of allowing individuals to make war on their own authority, gjjk 
by mingling themselves in the belligerent operations of other 
nations, to run the hazard of counteracting the policy, or em- 
broiling the relations, of their own government. And the 
United States have been the first among civilized states to en- 
force the observance of this just rule of neutrality and peace, 
by special and adequate legal enactments. In the infancy of 
this government, on the breaking out of the European wars 
which had their origin in the French Revolution, Congress 
passed laws, with severe penalties, for preventing the citizens 
of the United States from taking part in those hostilities. 

By these laws, it prescribed to the citizens of the United 
States what it understood to be their duty, as neutrals, by the 
law of nations, and the duty, also, which they owed to the in- 
terest and honor of their own country. 

At a subsequent period, when the American colonies of a 
European power took up arms against their sovereign, Con- 
gress, not diverted from the established system of the govern- 
ment by any temporary considerations, not swerved from its 
sense of justice and of duty by any sympathies which it might 
naturally feel for one of the parties, did not hesitate, also, to 
pass acts applicable to the case of colonial insurrection and 
civil war. And these provisions of law have been continued, 
revised, amended, and are in full force at the present moment. 
Nor have they been a dead letter, as it is well known that ex- 
emplary punishments have been inflicted on those who have 
transgressed them. It is known, indeed, that heavy penalties 
have fallen on individuals (citizens of the United States) engaged 
in this very disturbance in Canada with which the destruction 
of the Caroline was connected. And it is in Mr. Fox's knowl- 
edge, also, that the act of Congress of the 10th of March, 1838, 
was passed for the precise purpose of more effectually restrain- 
ing military enterprises from the United States into the British 
provinces, by authorizing the use of the most sure and decisive 
preventive means. The undersigned may add, that it stands 
on the admission of very high British authority, that during the 
recent Canadian troubles, although bodies of adventurers ap- 
peared on the border, making it necessary for the people of 



132 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

Canada to keep themselves in a state prepared for self-defense, 
yet that these adventurers were acting by no means in accord- 
ance with the feeling of the great mass of the American peo- 
ple, or of the government of the United States. 

This government, therefore, not only holds itself above re- 
proach in every thing respecting the preservation of neutrality, 
the observance of the principle of non-intervention, and the 
strictest conformity, in these respects, to the rules of interna- 
tional law, but it doubts not that the world will do it the justice 
to acknowledge that it has set an example not unfit to be fol- 
lowed by others ; and that by its steady legislation on this most 
important subject it has done something to promote peace and 
good neighborhood among nations, and to advance the civiliza- 
tion of mankind. 

The undersigned trusts that when her Britannic majesty's 
government shall present the grounds, at length, on which they 
justify the local authorities of Canada in attacking and destroy- 
ing the "Caroline," they will consider that the laws of the 
United States are such as the undersigned has now represent- 
ed them, and that the government of the United States has al- 
ways manifested a sincere disposition to see those laws effect- 
ually and impartially administered. If there have been cases 
in which individuals, justly obnoxious to punishment, have es- 
caped, this is no more than happens in regard to other laws. 

Under these circumstances, and under those immediately 
connected with the transaction itself, it will be for her majes- 
ty's government to show upon what state of facts and what 
rules of national law the destruction of the "Caroline" is to be 
defended. It will be for that government to show a necessity 
of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of 
means, and no moment for deliberation. It will be for it to 
show, also, that the local authorities of Canada, even supposing 
the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the ter- 
ritories of the United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or 
excessive ; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-de- 
fense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly with- 
in it. It must be shown that admonition or remonstrance to 
the persons on board the " Caroline" was impracticable, or 
would have been unavailing. It must be shown that daylight 
could not be waited for ; that there could be no attempt at dis- 
crimination between the innocent and the guilty ; that it would 
not have been enough to seize and detain the vessel ; but that 
there was a necessity, present and inevitable, for attacking her 
in the darkness of the night, while moored to the shore, and 
while unarmed men were asleep on board, killing some and 
wounding others, and then drawing her into the current above 
the cataract, setting her on fire, and, careless to know whether 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 133 

there might not be in her the innocent with the guilty, or the 
living with the dead, committing her to a fate which fills the 
imagination with horror. A necessity for all this the govern- 
ment of the United States can not believe to have existed. 

All will see that, if such things be allowed to occur, they 
must lead to bloody and exasperated war. And when an in- 
dividual comes into the United States from Canada, and to the 
very place on which this drama was performed, and there 
chooses to make public and vain-glorious boast of the part he 
acted in it, it is hardly wonderful that great excitement should 
be created, and some degree of commotion arise. 

This republic does not wish to disturb the tranquillity of the 
world. Its object is peace, its policy peace. It seeks no ag- 
grandizement by foreign conquest, because it knows that no 
foreign acquisitions could augment its power and importance 
so rapidly as they are already advancing by its own natural 
growth, under the propitious circumstances of its situation. 
But it can not admit that its government has not both the will 
and the power to preserve its own neutrality, and to enforce 
the observance of its own laws upon its own citizens. It is 
jealous of its rights, and among others, and most especially, of 
the right of the absolute immunity of its territory against ag- 
gression from abroad ; and these rights it is the duty and de- 
termination of this government fully and at all times to main- 
tain, while it will at the same time as scrupulously refrain from 
infringing on the rights of others. 

The President instructs the undersigned to say, in conclu- 
sion, that he confidently trusts that this and all other questions 
of difference between the two governments will be treated by 
both in the full exercise of such a spirit of candor, justice, and 
mutual respect as shall give assurance of the long continuance 
of peace between the two countries. 

The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to assure 
Mr. Fox of his high consideration. Daniel Webster. 

Henry S. Fox, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. 

[iNCLOSURE.] 

Department of State, Washington, March 15, 1841. 

Sir, — Alexander M'Leod, a Canadian subject of her Britan- 
nic majesty, is now imprisoned at Lockport, in the State of 
New York, under an indictment for murder alleged to have 
been committed by him in the attack on, and the destruction 
of, the steam-boat Caroline, at Schlosser, in that state, on the 
night of the 29th of December, 1837 ; and his trial is expected 
to take place at Lockport on the 22d instant. 

You are apprised of the correspondence which took place 
between Mr. Forsyth, late Secretary of State, and Mr. Fox, her 



134 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

Britannic majesty's minister here, on this subject, in December 
last. 

In his note to Mr. Fox, of the 26th of that month, Mr. For- 
syth says : " If the destruction of the Caroline was a public act 
of persons in her majesty's service obeying the order of their 
superior authorities, this fact has not been before communi- 
cated to the government of the United States by a person au- 
thorized to make the admission ; and it will be for the court 
which has taken cognizance of the offense with which Mr. 
M'Leod is charged to decide upon its validity when legally 
established before it. 

" The President deems this to be a proper occasion to re- 
mind the government of her Britannic majesty that the case of 
the Caroline has been long since brought to the attention of her 
majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, 
up to this day, has not communicated its decision thereupon. 
It is hoped that the government of her majesty will perceive 
the importance of no longer leaving the government of the 
United States uninformed of its views and intentions upon a 
subject which has naturally produced much exasperation, and 
which has led to such grave consequences." 

I have now to inform you that Mr. Fox has addressed a note 
to this department, under date of the 12th instant, in which, 
by the immediate instruction and direction of his government, 
he demands, formally and officially, M'Leod's immediate re- 
lease, on the ground that this transaction, on account of which 
he has been arrested and is to be put upon his trial, was of a 
public character, planned and executed by persons duly em- 
powered by her majesty's colonial authorities to take any steps, 
and to do any acts, which might be necessary for the defense 
of her majesty's territories, and for the protection of her majes- 
ty's subjects ; and that, consequently, those subjects of her maj- 
esty who engaged in that transaction were performing an act 
of public duty, for which they can not be made, personally and 
individually, answerable to the laws and tribunals of any foreign 
country ; and that her majesty's government has further directed 
Mr. Fox to make known to the government of the United States 
that her majesty's government entirely approved of the course 
pursued by Mr. Fox, and the language adopted by him in the 
correspondence above mentioned. 

There is, therefore, now an authentic declaration on the part 
of the British government that the attack on the Caroline was 
an act of public force, done by military men under the orders 
of their superiors, and is recognized as such by the queen's 
government. The importance of this declaration is not to be 
doubted, and the President is of opinion that it calls upon him 
for the performance of a high duty. That an individual, form- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 135 

ing part of a public force, and acting under the authority of his 
government, is not to be held answerable, as a private tres- 
passer or malefactor, is a principle of public law sanctioned by 
the usages of all civilized nations, and which the government 
of the United States has no inclination to dispute. This has no 
connection whatever with the question, whether, in this case, 
the attack on the Caroline was, as the British government think 
it, a justifiable employment of force for the purpose of defend- 
ing the British territory from unprovoked attack, or whether it 
was a most unjustifiable invasion, in time of peace, of the ter- 
ritory of the United States, as this government has regarded 
it. The two questions are essentially distinct and different ; 
and, while acknowledging that an individual may claim immu- 
nity from the consequences of acts done by him, by showing 
that he acted under national authority, this government is not 
to be understood as changing the opinions which it has here- 
tofore expressed in regard to the real nature of the transaction 
which resulted in the destruction of the Caroline. That sub- 
ject it is not necessary for any purpose connected with this com- 
munication now to discuss. The views of this government in 
relation to it are known to that of England ; and we are ex- 
pecting the answer of that government to the communication 
w 7 hich has been made to it. 

All that is intended to be said at present is, that since the at- 
tack on the Caroline is avowed as a national act, which may 
justify reprisals, or even general war, if the government of the 
United States, in the judgment which it shall form of the trans- 
action and of its own duty, should see fit so to decide, yet that 
it raises a question entirely public and political ; a question be- 
tween independent nations, and that individuals concerned in it 
can not be arrested and tried before the ordinary tribunals, as 
for the violation of municipal law. If the attack on the Caro- 
line was unjustifiable, as this government has asserted, the law 
which has been violated is the law of nations ; and the redress 
which is to be sought is the redress authorized, in such cases, 
by the provisions of that code. 

You are well aware that the President has no power to ar- 
rest the proceeding in the civil and criminal courts of the State 
of New York. If this indictment were pending in one of the 
courts of the United States, I am directed to say that the Presi- 
dent, upon the receipt of Mr. Fox's last communication, would 
have immediately directed a nolle prosequi to be entered. 

Whether, in this case, the Governor of New York have that 
power, or, if he have, whether he would feel it his duty to ex- 
ercise it, are points upon which we are not informed. 

It is understood that M'Leod is holden also on civil process, 
sued out against him by the owner of the Caroline. We sup- 



136 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

pose it very clear that the executive of the state can not inter- 
fere with such process ; and, indeed, if such process were pend- 
ing in the courts of the United States, the President could not 
arrest it. In such, and many analogous cases, the party prose- 
cuted or sued must avail himself of his exemption or defense by 
judicial procedings, either in the court into which he is called, 
or in some other court. But whether the process be criminal 
or civil, the fact of having acted under public authority, and in 
obedience to the orders of lawful superiors, must be regarded 
as a valid defense ; otherwise individuals would be holden re- 
sponsible for injuries resulting from the acts of government, and 
even from the operations of public war. 

You will be furnished with a copy of this instruction for the 
use of the Executive of New York, and the attorney-general of 
that state. You will carry with you, also, authentic evidence 
of the recognition by the British government of the destruction 
of the Caroline as an act of public force, done by national au- 
thority. 

The President is impressed with the propriety of transferring 
the trial from the scene of the principal excitement to some 
other and distant county. You will take care that this be sug- 
gested to the prisoner's counsel. The President is gratified to 
learn that the Governor of New York has already directed that 
the trial take place before the chief-justice of the state. 

Having consulted with the governor, you will proceed to 
Lockport, or wherever else the trial may be holden, and furnish 
the prisoner's counsel with the evidence of which you will be 
in possession material to his defense. You will see that he have 
skillful and eminent counsel, if such be not already retained ; 
and, although you are not desired to act as counsel yourself, 
you will cause it to be signified to him, and to the gentleman 
who may conduct his defense, that it is the wish of this govern- 
ment that, in case his defense be overruled by the court in 
which he shall be tried, proper steps be taken immediately for 
removing the cause, by writ of error, to the Supreme Court of 
the United States. 

The President hopes that you will use such dispatch as to 
make your arrival at the place of trial sure before the trial 
comes on ; and he trusts you will keep him informed of what- 
ever occurs by means of a correspondence through this depart- 
ment. 

I have the honor to be, Mr. Attorney-general, your obedient 
servant, Daniel Webster. 

Hon. John J. Crittenden, Attorney-general of the United States. 



It is known that M'Leod was brought before the Supreme 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 137 

Court of the State of New York by writs of habeas corpus, and 
his discharge from imprisonment insisted on, upon the ground 
that, if he had had any concern in the destruction of the Caro- 
line, he had acted therein as a soldier, under the order of his 
superiors, in a military expedition planned and authorized by 
the British colonial government of Canada, and afterward avow- 
ed and sanctioned by the queen's government in England. 

The court on that occasion, however, took a different view of 
the law from that which had been expressed by Mr. Webster 
in his letters to Mr. Fox and Mr. Crittenden. The case is re- 
ported in Wendell's Reports, vol. xxv., page 483. 

This decision does not appear to have given satisfaction ei- 
ther to the profession or to the public men of the country. It 
was ably reviewed in a pamphlet by the late D. B. Talmadge, 
formerly one of the judges of the Superior Court of the city of 
New York. That review will also be found in Wendell's Re- 
ports, vol. xxvi., in the Appendix. 

Chancellor Kent, Chief-justice Spencer, and other eminent 
jurists have expressed their approbation of Mr. Talmadge's 
" Review," and their entire concurrence in his judgment upon 
the legal question. 

It was justly apprehended, that if the tribunals of individual 
states possessed the power of acting on questions of this kind, 
without revision or control, dangerous consequences might 
arise to the peace of the country. How could the government 
of the United States be responsible for the fulfillment of its ob- 
ligations to other governments, their citizens and subjects, if, 
in cases of so much importance and delicacy as M'Leod's, a 
state court might take final judgment into its own hands? An 
ultimate reference in some way to the judicial authorities of 
the United States, of questions connected with the foreign re- 
lations of the country, and which may involve its peace, would 
seem to be quite essential. Under the influence of such a con- 
viction, and with this decision of the Supreme Court of New 
York before it, Congress, on the 29th of August, 1842, passed 
the following act : 

"An Act to provide further remedial Justice in the Courts of the 

United States. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That either 
of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, or a 
judge of any District Court of the United States, in which a 
prisoner is confined, in addition to the authority already con- 
ferred by law, shall have power to grant writs of habeas 
corpus in all cases of any prisoner or prisoners in jail or con- 
finement, where he, she, or they, being subjects or citizens of a 



138 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

foreign state, and domiciled therein, shall be committed or con- 
fined, or in custody, under or by any authority or law, or pro- 
cess founded thereon, of the United States, or of any one of 
them, for or on account of any act done or omitted under any 
alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemp- 
tion, set up or claimed under the commission, or order, or sanc- 
tion of any foreign state or sovereignty, the validity or effect 
whereof depend upon the law of nations, or under color there- 
of. And upon the return of the said writ, and due proof of the 
service of notice of the said proceeding to the attorney general, 
or other officer prosecuting the pleas of the state, under whose 
authority the petitioner has been arrested, committed, or is held 
in custody, to be prescribed by the said justice or judge at the 
time of granting said writ, the said justice or judge shall pro- 
ceed to hear the said cause ; and if, upon hearing the same, it 
shall appear that the prisoner or prisoners is or are entitled to 
be discharged from such confinement, commitment, custody, 
or arrest, for or by reason of such alleged right, title, authority, 
privileges, protection, or exemption, so set up and claimed, and 
the law of nations applicable thereto, and that the same exists 
in fact, and has been duly proved to the said justice or judge, 
then it shall be the duty of the said justice or judge forthwith 
to discharge such prisoner or prisoners accordingly. And if it 
shall appear to the said justice or judge that such judgment of 
discharge ought not to be rendered, then the said prisoner 
or prisoners shall be forthwith remanded : Pi-ovided always, 
That from any decision of such justice or judge an appeal may 
be taken to the Circuit Court of the United States for the dis- 
trict in which the said cause is heard ; and from the judgment 
of the said Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United 
States, on such terms and under such regulations and orders as 
well for the custody and appearance of the prisoner or prisoners 
as for sending up to the appellate tribunal a transcript of the 
petition, writ of habeas corpus returned thereto, and other pro- 
ceedings, as the judge hearing the said cause may prescribe ; 
and pending such proceedings or appeal, and until final judg- 
ment be rendered therein, and after final judgment of discharge 
in the same, any proceeding against said prisoner or prisoners, 
in any state court, or by or under the authority of any state, 
for any matter or thing so heard and determined, or in process 
of being heard and determined, under and by virtue of such 
writ of habeas corpus, shall be deemed null and void." 

The authorities of public law would appear to be under no 
doubt of M'Leod's right to be exempted from personal respons- 
ibility for any act he might have committed as a member of a 
military force acting under the authority of its government. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 139 

The following citations may be sufficient to establish this, 
and to maintain the principles stated in Mr. Webster's letter to 
the attorney general. 

"On all occasions susceptible of doubt, the whole nation, the 
individuals, and especially the military, are to submit their judg- 
ment to those who hold the reins of government — to the sov- 
ereign. This they are bound to do, by the essential principles 
of political society and of government. What would be the 
consequence if, at every step of the sovereign, the subjects were 
at liberty to weigh the justice of his reasons, and refuse to march 
to a war which might to them appear unjust? It often hap- 
pens that prudence will not permit a sovereign to disclose all 
his reasons. It is the duty of subjects to suppose them just 
and wise, until clear and absolute evidence tells them the con- 
trary. When, therefore, under the impression of such an idea, 
they have lent their assistance in a war which is afterward 
found to be unjust, the sovereign alone is guilty ; he alone is 
bound to repair the injuries. The subjects, and in particular 
the military, are innocent ; they have acted only from a nec- 
essary obedience." — Vattel, b. iii., ch. ii., § 187. 

"Indeed, in solemn war, the individual members of a nation 
which has declared war are not punishable by the adverse 
nation for what they do, because the guilt of their actions is 
chargeable upon the nation which directs and authorizes them 
to act. But even this effect may be produced, though not in 
the respect of all the members of the nation, yet in respect of 
some of them, without a declaration of war. For, in the less 
solemn kinds of war, what the members do, who act under the 
particular direction and authority of their nation, is by the law 
of nations no personal crime in them ; they can not, therefore, 
be punished, consistently with this law, for any act in which it 
considers them only as the instruments, and the nation as the 
agent." — Rutherford, b. ii., ch. ix., § 18. 

" A mere presumption of the will of the sovereign would not 
be sufficient to excuse a governor or any other officer who 
should undertake a war, except in case of necessity, without 
either a general or particular order. For it is not sufficient to 
know what part the sovereign would probably act if he were 
consulted in such a particular posture of affairs ; but it should 
rather be considered, in general, what it is probable a prince 
would desire should be done, without consulting him, when the 
matter will bear no delay and the affair is dubious. Now, cer- 
tainly, sovereigns will never consent that their ministers should, 
whenever they think proper, undertake without their order a 
thing of such importance as an offensive war, which is the prop- 
er subject of the present inquiry. 

" In these circumstances, whatever part the sovereign would 



140 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

have thought proper to act if he had been consulted, and what- 
ever success the war undertaken without his order may have 
had, it is left to the sovereign whether he will ratify or con- 
demn the act of his ministers. If he ratify it, this approbation 
renders the war solemn, by reflecting back, as it were, an au- 
thority upon it ; so that it obliges the whole commonwealth." 
— Burlimaqui, Part iv., ch. hi., § 18 and 19. 



RIGHT OF SEARCH. 
Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster. — [extracts.] 

Legation of the United States, London, December 2d,, 1841. 

While at Paris, I received a letter from Lord Aberdeen of 
the 2d December, with sundry accompanying documents, rela- 
tive to an extraordinary outrage on the person of Captain En- 
dicott, of the American bark Lintin, in Macao Roads. On my 
return to London, I acknowledged the receipt of this commu- 
nication, and herewith transmit you a copy of Lord Aberdeen's 
note and my reply, and of all the documents in the case. I 
should have been pleased to confine my answer to a simple ex- 
pression of satisfaction at the promptness of the action of her 
majesty's government ; but I deemed it but just to Captain En- 
dicott to make an observation in answer to that part of Lord 
Aberdeen's note in which the burden of the provocation was 
assumed to be on Captain Endicott's side. 

I received on the 23d instant a note from Lord Aberdeen on 
the African seizures, in reply to one addressed to him by Mr. 
Stevenson in the last hours' of his residence in London, and 
which, as it appears, did not reach Lord Aberdeen's hands till 
Mr. Stevenson had left London. As some time must elapse 
before I could give a detailed answer to this communication, I 
thought it best at once to acknowledge its receipt, to express 
my satisfaction at its dispassionate tone, and to announce the 
purpose of replying to it at some future period. The Presi- 
dent, I think, will be struck with the marked change in the tone 
of the present ministry, as manifested in this note and a former 
one addressed by Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Stevenson, contrasted 
with the last communication from Lord Palmerston on the same 
subject. The difference is particularly apparent in Lord Aber- 
deen's letter to me of the 20th inst. Not only is the claim of 
Great Britain, relative to the right of detaining suspicious ves- 
sels, stated in a far less exceptionable manner than it had been 
done by Lord Palmerston, but Lord Aberdeen expressly de- 
clines being responsible for the language of his predecessor. 

You will observe that Lord Aberdeen disclaims, in a more 
distinct manner than it has ever been done, all right to search, 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 141 

detain, or in any manner interfere with American vessels, 
whether engaged in the slave trade or not ; that he limits the 
pretensions of this government to boarding vessels strongly 
suspected of being those of other nations unwarrantably as- 
suming the American flag ; and promises, when this right has 
been abused to the injury of American vessels, that full and 
ample reparation shall be made. As the United States have 
never claimed that their flag should furnish protection to any 
vessels but their own, and as very strict injunctions have been 
forwarded to the cruisers on the coast of Africa not to inter- 
fere with American vessels, I am inclined to think that cases 
of interruption will become much less frequent. And if this 
government should redeem in good faith Lord Aberdeen's prom- 
ise of reparation where injury has been done, I am disposed 
to hope that this subject of irritation will in a great measure 
cease to exist. I shall not engage in the discussion of the gen- 
eral principles as now avowed and explained by this govern- 
ment till I hear from you on the subject, and know what the 
President's views are ; but I shall confine myself chiefly to 
urging the claim for redress in the cases of the Tigris, Seamew, 
Jones, and William and Francis, which were the last submitted 
by my predecessor, and on which no answer has been received 
from this government. 

Among the reasons for supposing that fewer causes of com- 
plaint will hereafter arise, is the circumstance that the seizures 
of last year took place under the agreement of Commodore 
Tucker, the British commander on the African station, and the 
officer in command of the American cruiser. I find nothing 
on the files of the legation showing what order, if any, has been 
taken by our government on the subject of this arrangement. 
It is taken for granted by this government that this agreement 
is disavowed by that of the United States ; and since February 
last positive orders have been given to the British cruisers in 
the African seas not to interfere with American ships, even 
though known to be engaged in the slave trade. I shall await 
with much anxiety the instructions of the President on this im- 
portant subject. 

[inclosure.] 

Foreign Office, December 2, 1841. 

Sir, — I have the honor to inform you that the Lords Com- 
missioners of the Admiralty have communicated to me a dis- 
patch and its inclosures, which their lordships have recently 
received from Commodore Sir J. Gordon Bremer, dated Hong 
Kong, the 9th of August last, relative to the improper conduct 
of Mr. Bean, master and commanding officer of her majesty's 
ship " Herald," toward the master of the American barque 



142 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

" Lintin," while at anchor in the Taypa Roads, near Macao. 
It appears from these papers (copies of which I have the honor 
to inclose, for the information of your government), that some 
altercation having taken place respecting the mooring of their 
respective vessels, the master of the " Herald" in the afternoon 
of the 24th of July, manned and armed a boat, and sent the 
mate of the " Herald''' alongside the " Lintin'' with orders to 
require the master of that vessel to go on board the " Herald ;" 
and that, upon his refusing to go, he was forcibly conveyed 
thither, and there detained for some hours. 

Although it would appear, from the details given in the in- 
closed papers, that the master of the " Lintin" brought this in- 
dignity upon himself by his own irritating and contemptuous 
conduct toward the commander of the "Herald," yet her 
majesty's government consider such provocation as no justifi- 
cation for the proceeding adopted by Mr. Bean, and the Lords 
Commissioners of the Admiralty have accordingly signified to 
that officer their high displeasure at his indefensible conduct 
upon this occasion, and have ordered him to be dismissed from 
her majesty's service and sent home. I have, &c, 

Aberdeen. 

Edward Everett, Esq. 

Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett. — [inclosure.] 

Foreign Office, December 20, 1841. 

The undersigned, her majesty's principal Secretary of State 
for Foreign Affairs, has the honor of addressing to Mr. Ev- 
erett, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the 
United States, the observations which he feels called upon to 
make in answer to the note of Mr. Stevenson, dated on the 21st 
of October. 

As that communication only reached the hands of the un- 
dersigned on the day after the departure of Mr. Stevenson from 
London, on his return to America, and as there has since been 
no minister or charge d'affaires from the United States resi- 
dent in this country, the undersigned has looked with some 
anxiety for the arrival of Mr. Everett, in order that he might 
be enabled to renew his diplomatic intercourse with an accred- 
ited representative of the republic. Had the undersigned en- 
tertained no other purpose than to controvert the arguments of 
Mr. Stevenson, or to fortify his own, in treating of the mat- 
ter which has formed the subject of their correspondence, he 
would have experienced little impatience: but as it is his de- 
sire to clear up doubt, and to remove misapprehension, he feels 
that he can not too early avail himself of the presence of Mr. 
Everett at his post, to bring to his knowledge the true state of 
the question at issue. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 143 

The undersigned agrees with Mr. Stevenson in the import- 
ance of arriving at a clear understanding of the matter really 
in dispute. This ought to be the first object in the differences 
of states, as well as of individuals ; and, happily, it is often the 
first step to the reconciliation of the parties. In the present 
case this understanding is doubly essential, because a continu- 
ance of mistake and error may be productive of the most se- 
rious consequences. 

Mr. Stevenson persists in contending that the British gov- 
ernment assert a right which is equivalent to the claim of 
searching American vessels in time of peace. In proof of this, 
Mr. Stevenson refers to a passage in a former note of Vis- 
count Palmerston, addressed to himself, against which he 
strongly protests, and the doctrine contained in which he says 
that the undersigned is understood to affirm. 

Now, it is not the intention of the undersigned to inquire into 
the precise import and force of the expressions of Viscount Pal- 
merston. These might have been easily explained to Mr. Ste- 
venson by their author at the time they were written ; but the 
undersigned must request that his doctrines upon this subject, 
and those of the government of which he is the organ, may be 
judged of exclusively from his own declarations. 

The undersigned again renounces, as he has already done in 
the most explicit terms, any right on the part of the British gov- 
ernment to search American vessels in time of peace. The 
right of search, except when specially conceded by treaty, is a 
purely belligerent right, and can have no existence on the high 
seas during peace. The undersigned apprehends, however, 
that the right of search is not confined to the verification of the 
nationality of the vessel, but also extends to the object of the 
voyage and the nature of the cargo. The sole purpose of the 
British cruisers is, to ascertain whether the vessels they meet 
with are really American or not. The right asserted has, in 
truth, no resemblance to the right of search, either in principle 
or in practice. It is simply a right to satisfy the party, who 
has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth, that the vessel 
actually is what her colors announce. This right we concede 
as freely as we exercise. The British cruisers are not instruct- 
ed to detain American vessels, under any circumstances what- 
ever ; on the contrary, they are ordered to abstain from all in- 
terference with them, be they slavers or otherwise. But where 
reasonable suspicion exists that the American flag has been 
abused for the purpose of covering the vessel of another nation, 
it would appear scarcely credible, had it not been made mani- 
fest by the repeated protestations of their representative, that 
the government of the United States, which has stigmatized 
and abolished the trade itself, should object to the adoption of 



144 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

such means as are indispensably necessary for ascertaining 
the truth. 

The undersigned had contended in his former note that the 
legitimate inference from the arguments of Mr. Stevenson would 
practically extend even to the sanction of piracy, when the per- 
sons engaged in it should think fit to shelter themselves under 
the flag of the United States. Mr. Stevenson observes, that 
this is a misapprehension on the part of the undersigned ; and 
he declares that, in denying the right of interfering with vessels 
under the American flag, he intended to limit his objection to 
vessels bona fide American, and not to those belonging to na- 
tions who might fraudulently have assumed the flag of the Unit- 
ed States. But it appears to the undersigned that his former 
statement is by no means satisfactorily controverted by the 
declaration of Mr. Stevenson. How is this bona fide to be prov- 
ed ? Must not Mr. Stevenson either be prepared to maintain 
that the flag alone is sufficient evidence of the nationality of the 
vessel (which, in the face of his own repeated admissions, he 
can not do), or must he not confess that the application of his 
arguments would really afford protection to every lawless and 
piratical enterprise ? 

The undersigned had also expressed his belief that the prac- 
tice was general of ascertaining, by visit, the real character of 
any vessel on the high seas against which there should exist 
reasonable ground of suspicion. Mr. Stevenson denies this ; 
and he asks, what other nation than Great Britain had ever as- 
serted, or attempted to exercise, such a right? In answer to 
this question, the undersigned can at once refer to the avowed 
and constant practice of the United States, whose cruisers, es- 
pecially in the Gulf of Mexico, by the admission of their pub- 
lic journals, are notoriously in the habit of examining all sus- 
picious vessels, whether sailing under the English flag or any 
other. In whose eyes are these vessels suspicious 1 Doubt- 
less, in those of the commanders of the American cruisers. But, 
in truth, this right is quite as important to the United States as 
to Great Britain ; nor is it easy to conceive how the maritime 
intercourse of mankind could safely be carried on without such 
a check. 

It can scarcely be necessary to remind Mr. Everett that the 
right thus claimed by Great Britain is not exercised for any 
selfish purpose. It is asserted in the interest of humanity, and 
in mitigation of the sufferings of our fellow-men. The object 
has met with the concurrence of the whole civilized world, in- 
cluding the United States of America ; and it ought to receive 
universal assistance and support. 

The undersigned can not abstain here from referring to the 
conduct of an honorable and zealous officer commanding the 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 145 

naval force of the United States on the coast of Africa, who, 
relying on the sincere desire of his government for the sup- 
pression of the slave trade, and sensible of the abuse of the 
American flag, entered into an engagement on the 11th of 
March, 1840, with the officer in command of her majesty's 
cruisers on the same station, by which they mutually request- 
ed each other, and agreed, to detain all vessels under Ameri- 
can colors employed in the traffic. If found to be American 
property, such vessels were to be delivered over to the com- 
mander of any American cruiser on the station ; or, if belong- 
ing to other nations, they were to be dealt with according to 
the treaties contracted by her majesty with the respective 
states. The undersigned believes — and, indeed, after the state- 
ment of Mr. Stevenson, he regrets to be unable to doubt — that 
the conduct of this gallant officer, however natural and lauda- 
ble in its object, has been disavowed by his government. 

It is not the intention of the undersigned at present to advo- 
cate the justice and propriety of the mutual right of search, as 
conceded and regulated by treaty, or to weigh the reasons on 
account of which this proposal has been rejected by the gov- 
ernment of the United States. He took occasion, in a former 
note, to observe, that concessions sanctioned by Great Britain 
and France were not likely to be incompatible with the dignity 
and independence of any other state which should be disposed 
to follow their example. But the undersigned begs now to in- 
form Mr. Everett that he has this day concluded a joint treaty 
with France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, by which the mu- 
tual right of search, within certain latitudes, is fully and effect- 
ually established forever. This is, in truth, a holy alliance, in 
which the undersigned would have rejoiced to see the United 
States assume their proper place among the great powers of 
Christendom, foremost in power, wealth, and civilization, and 
connected together in the cause of mercy and justice. 

It is undoubtedly true that this right may be abused, like ev- 
ery other which is delegated to many and different hands. It 
is possible that it may be exercised wantonly and vexatiously ; 
and should this be the case, it would not only call for remon- 
strance, but would justify resentment. This, however, is in 
the highest degree improbable; and if, in spite of the utmost 
caution, an error should be committed, and any American ves- 
sel should suffer loss and injury, it would be followed by prompt 
and ample reparation. The undersigned begs to repeat, that 
with American vessels^ whatever be their destination, British 
cruisers have no pretension, in any manner, to interfere. Such 
vessels must be permitted, if engaged in it, to enjoy a monop- 
oly of this unhallowed trade ; but the British government will 
never endure that the fraudulent use of the American flag shall 

K 



146 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

extend the iniquity to other nations by whom it is abhorred, 
and who have entered into solemn treaties with this country 
for its entire suppression. 

In order to prove to Mr. Everett the anxiety of her majes- 
ty's government to prevent all reasonable grounds of com- 
plaint, the undersigned believes that he can not do better than 
to communicate to him the substance of those instructions under 
which the British cruisers act in relation to American vessels 
when employed on this service : 

If, from the intelligence which the officer commanding her 
majesty's cruiser may have received, or from the maneuvers 
of the vessel, or from other sufficient cause, he shall have rea- 
son to believe that, although bearing the American flag, the 
vessel does not belong to the United States, he is ordered, if 
the state of the wind and weather shall admit of it, to go ahead 
of the suspected vessel, after communicating his intention by 
hailing, and to drop a boat on board of her to ascertain her 
nationality, without detaining her if she shall prove to be really 
an American vessel. But should this mode of visiting the ves- 
sel be impracticable, he is to require her to be brought to for 
this purpose. The officer who boards the vessel is merely to 
satisfy himself of her nationality by her papers, or other proofs; 
and should she really be an American vessel, he will immedi- 
ately quit her, offering, with the consent of her commander, to 
note on her papers the cause of suspecting her nationality, and 
the number of minutes she was detained (if detained at all) for 
the object in question. All the particulars are to be immedi- 
ately entered on the log-book of the cruiser, and a full state- 
ment of them is to be sent, by the first opportunity, direct to 
England. 

These are the precautions taken by her majesty's govern- 
ment against the occurrence of abuse in the performance of 
this service ; and they are ready to adopt any others which they 
may think more effectual for the purpose, and which shall at 
the same time be consistent with the attainment of the main 
object in view. 

Mr. Stevenson has said that he had no wish to exempt the 
fraudulent use of the American flag from detection; and this 
being the case, the undersigned is unwilling to believe that a 
government like that of the United States, professing the same 
object and animated by the same motives as Great Britain, 
should seriously oppose themselves to every possible mode by 
which their own desire could be really accomplished. 

The undersigned, &c. Aberdeen. 

Edward Everett, Esq., &c., &c, &c. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 147 



Mr. Webster to Mr. Everett. — [extracts.] 

Department of State, Washington, January 29, 1842. 

By the " Britannia," arrived at Boston, I have received your 
dispatch of the 28th of December (No. 4), and your dispatch 
of the 31st of the same month (No. 5), with a postscript of the 
3d of January. 

The necessity of returning an early answer to these com- 
munications (as the " Britannia" is expected to leave Boston 
the 1st of February) obliges me to postpone a reply to those 
parts of them which are not of considerable and immediate 
importance. 

The President has read Lord Aberdeen's note to you of the 
20th of December, in reply to Mr. Stevenson's note to Lord 
Palmerston of the 21st of October, and thinks you were quite 
right in acknowledging the dispassionate tone of that paper. 
It is only by the exercise of calm reason that truth can be ar- 
rived at in questions of a complicated nature ; and between 
states, each of which understands and respects the intelligence 
and the power of the other, there ought to be no unwillingness 
to follow its guidance. At the present day, no state is so high 
as that the principles of its intercourse with other nations are 
above question, or its conduct above scrutiny. On the con- 
trary, the whole civilized world, now vastly better informed on 
such subjects than in former ages, and alive and sensible to the 
principles adopted and the purposes avowed by the leading 
states, necessarily constitutes a tribunal august in character 
and formidable in its decisions. And it is before this tribunal, 
and upon the rules of natural justice, moral propriety, the 
usages of modern times, and the prescriptions of public law, 
that governments which respect themselves and respect their 
neighbors must be prepared to discuss, with candor and with 
dignity, any topics which may have caused differences to spring 
up between them. 

Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster. — [extract.] 

Legation of the United States, London, March 1, 1842. 

I received by the Britannia your dispatch No. 8, with the 
accompanying documents, relative to the case of the " Creole" 
As my note to the British government on this subject must of 
necessity be somewhat long, I have thought it better to make 
the other matters referred to in your dispatch the subject of a 
separate communication to Lord Aberdeen. This communi- 
cation I addressed to him on the 21st of February, and a copy 
of it is herewith inclosed. 



148 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

[iNCLOSURE.] 

Mr. Everett to Lord Aberdeen. — [extracts.] 

Legation of the United States, February 21, 1842. 

The note of the Earl of Aberdeen to the undersigned of the 
20th of December, in reply to Mr. Stevenson's to his lordship 
of the 21st of October, has been read by the President with 
satisfaction at the dispassionate tone with which Lord Aber- 
deen has discussed the delicate and important subject of that 
communication. The President considers that it is only by the 
exercise of calm reason that truth can be arrived at in ques- 
tions of a complicated nature ; and between states, each of 
which understands and respects the intelligence and the power 
of the other, there ought to be no unwillingness to follow its 
dictates. At the present day, no state is so high as that the 
principles of its intercourse with other nations are above ques- 
tion, or its conduct above scrutiny. On the contrary, the whole 
civilized world, now vastly better informed on such subjects 
than in former ages, and alive and sensible to the principles 
adopted and the purposes avowed by the leading states, neces- 
sarily constitutes a tribunal august in character and formidable 
in its decisions. It is before this tribunal, and upon the rules 
of natural justice, moral propriety, the usages of modern times, 
and the prescriptions of public law, that governments which 
respect themselves and respect their neighbors must, in the 
apprehension of the President, be prepared to discuss, with 
candor and with dignity, any topics which may have caused 
differences to spring up between them ; and he places an un- 
doubting reliance on the concurrence of her majesty's govern- 
ment in these views of the principles which must govern the 
intercourse of nations. 

The President of the United States has approved the con- 
duct of the undersigned in forbearing, at the suggestion of the 
Earl of Aberdeen, to pursue the discussion here of topics which 
would form the subjects of negotiation between Lord Ash- 
burton and the government of the United States at Washing- 
ton. It is the duty, however, of the undersigned, to make an 
observation to Lord Aberdeen on the subject of American ves- 
sels detained, searched, and captured, which were enumerated 
in the note of the undersigned of December 27th. The under- 
signed is aware of the delay necessarily incident to official in- 
quiries into transactions occurring in distant seas, and has every 
reason to be satisfied with the promptness with which Lord 
Aberdeen called the attention of the Lords of the Admiralty to 
these cases. Firmly persuaded, however, that the success of 
any attempt to negotiate on this subject, in any form, will de- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 149 

pend upon the promptness with which redress is afforded in 
cases where wrong and injury have been inflicted, and with a 
view of presenting to her majesty's government, disconnected 
with other matters, a case which, it would seem to the under- 
signed, carries almost in its statement the materials for a safe 
opinion on its merits, the undersigned would respectfully invite 
the attention of Lord Aberdeen to the case of the " Tigris" 
In this case, on slender grounds of suspicion that the vessel was 
engaged in the slave trade — grounds which, as the undersigned 
understands, were immediately overruled by the Circuit Court 
of the United States for the circuit of Massachusetts, before 
which the proceedings were had — the American vessel, the 
" Tigris" was on the 7th October, 1840, by Lieutenant Matson, 
the commander of her majesty's brig " Waterwitch," searched, 
captured, taken out of her course, her voyage broken up, and 
the vessel sent home, with a prize crew, under a very young 
and (as is alleged) intemperate officer. The peculiarity of this 
case is, that in a letter addressed by Mr. Matson " to the secre- 
tary, or registrar, of either of the circuit courts of the United 
States," he uses the following language : " These, sir, are my 
reasons for taking upon myself the responsibility of detaining 
the * Tigris ;' but, in doing so, I find myself placed in a very 
delicate position, not having received any orders or instructions 
to interfere with vessels belonging to citizens of the United States, 
whatever their employment might be." This admission appears 
to deprive Lieutenant Matson of the justification relied upon in 
some cases in other respects similar, viz. : that which consist- 
ed in the agreement or understanding between Commodore 
Tucker and Lieutenant Commandant Paine, authorizing each 
other to institute a mutual search of British and American ves- 
sels engaged in the slave trade. Mr. Matson alleges no knowl- 
edge of that agreement, but expressly states that he acted on 
his own responsibility, and without orders or instructions. 

In separating this case from the others, it is not the purpose 
of the undersigned to make a distinction in their merits, but to 
call the attention of her majesty's government to a case which, 
from the peculiar circumstances mentioned, would seem to ad- 
mit a summary proceeding. 

Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster. — [extracts.] 

Legation of the United States, London, March 23, 1842. 

The queen's first levee was held on the 16th of March. 
While waiting in the room appropriated to the foreign minis- 
ters, Lord Aberdeen took me aside and informed me that he 
had an agreeable communication to make to me ; which was, 
that the government had determined to indemnify the owners 
of the " Tigris" for the damage sustained by the detention of 



150 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

that ship on the coast of Africa by the " Waterwitch." He said 
he had examined the subject sufficiently to make up his mind 
that the claim was just, and that he would immediately address 
me a note to that effect, which he did the next day. A copy 
of his note and of my answer are herewith inclosed. Whether 
the documentary evidence in my hands, a copy of which ac- 
companies my note to Lord Aberdeen, will be deemed suffi- 
cient, remains to be seen ; but, at all events, the matter is in a 
happy train of adjustment. 

I deem this an event of very great importance. You will 
bear in mind that the " Tigris" was one of four cases submit- 
ted by Mr. Stevenson to the British government in May last. 
Lord Palmerston did not refer them to the Admiralty till four 
months afterward. In my interview with Lord Aberdeen of 
the 27th of December, I found that his attention had not been 
drawn to these cases. I gave him their names, which he took 
down at the time, and, on my return home, 1 sent him a mem- 
orandum of them. Although I considered, with Lord Aber- 
deen, that the discussion of the question of search was, by the 
mission of Lord Ashburton, transferred to Washington — a view 
of the subject which the President has been pleased to ap- 
prove — I deemed it highly important to keep the individual 
instances of outrage constantly before the government here, 
with whom, of course, the reports of their cruisers on the coast 
of Africa are deposited. I seized the opportunity, when ad- 
dressing a note to Lord Aberdeen in obedience to the instruc- 
tions contained in your dispatch of the 29th of January, ex- 
pressing the satisfaction with which the mission of Lord Ash- 
burton was regarded by the government of the L T nited States, 
again to urge the case of the " Tigris" upon his consideration; 
this appearing to me the case admitting the readiest decision. 
I took care, however, to guard against any inference unfavor- 
able to the strength of the other claims which might be drawn 
from putting this case prominently forward ; and I shall urge 
the others at the proper time, in the manner best calculated to 
cause them to be favorably considered. 

[inclosure.] 

Foreign- Office, March 17, 1842. 

The undersigned, her majesty's principal Secretary of State 
for Foreign Affairs, has had the honor to receive the note ad- 
dressed to him on the 21st ultimo by Mr. Everett, envoy ex- 
traordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States 
of America ; and the undersigned has now the honor to ac- 
quaint Mr. Everett that her majesty's government have fully 
considered the case of the United States vessel " Tigris/' ad- 
verted to in that note, as having been detained on the coast of 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 151 

Africa by the commander of her majesty's brig " Waterwitch," 
and sent to the United States of America for trial. 

From the statement which the officer commanding the 
" Waterwitch" made in this case to the registrar of the United 
States Court, it appears that he was conscious of not being 
authorized, either by " instructions or orders" from his own 
government, " to interfere with vessels belonging to citizens 
of the United States, whatever their employment might be;" 
but that, in the course he adopted for enabling the courts of the 
United States to deal with a crime which the law has deemed 
to be a piracy, the commander of the " Waterwitch" believed 
he was performing " a duty which a British officer owed to the 
government of the United States." 

The principle upon which this officer acted may, perhaps, in 
the eyes of the government of a friendly power, afford some 
ground of extenuation for the erroneous view which he took 
of his duty. 

But her majesty's government acknowledge that the act of 
the officer commanding the " Waterwitch" was not justifiable 
upon any principle of international law, or by any existing 
treaty between Great Britain and the United States, and that 
the case is one in which compensation may justly be demanded 
by the United States government from the government of 
Great Britain. 

The undersigned has, accordingly, the honor to request that 
Mr. Everett will direct the owners of the " Tigris" to send a 
statement, accompanied by documentary evidence, of the dam- 
age which they have sustained by the unauthorized act of the 
British officer, in order that the account, as soon as it shall 
have been substantiated to the satisfaction of her majesty's 
government, may at once be settled. 

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to 
Mr. Everett the assurance of his distinguished consideration. 

Aberdeen. 

E. Everett, Esq., &c, &c., &c. 

[iNCLOSURE.] 

46 Grosvenor Place, March 29, 1842. 

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo- 
tentiary of the United States of America, has the honor to ac- 
knowledge the receipt of the note of the Earl of Aberdeen, her 
majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 
dated 17th of March instant, in which Lord Aberdeen informs 
the undersigned that her majesty's government acknowledge 
that the act of the officer commanding the " Waterwitch" in 
detaining the American ship u Tigris" on the coast of Africa, 

'ill 

was not justifiable on any principle of international law, or by 



152 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

any existing treaty between Great Britain and the United 
States, and that the case is one in which compensation may 
justly be demanded by the United States government from the 
government of Great Britain. 

The undersigned has received this communication from the 
Earl of Aberdeen with the highest satisfaction, and will lose 
no time in transmitting it to his government. The President 
of the United States, the undersigned is persuaded, will regard 
it as a signal manifestation of the principles of justice which 
animate her majesty's government, and of a determination to 
repair the wrongs which have been inflicted upon the American 
flag and commerce in the African seas. From such a determ- 
ination, thus manifested, the happiest influence on the relations 
of the two governments may be confidently anticipated. 

In reference to the request of Lord Aberdeen to be furnished 
with a statement by the owners of the " Tigris," accompanied 
with documentary evidence, of the damage which they have 
sustained by the unauthorized act of the British officer, the un- 
dersigned has the honor herewith to transmit, for more con- 
venient perusal, a copy of such a statement, which has lately 
been received from Washington. The original, duly authen- 
ticated, is also in the hands of the undersigned, and will be sent 
to Lord Aberdeen whenever a wish to that effect may be ex- 
pressed by his lordship. 

The undersigned has the honor to tender to Lord Aberdeen 

the assurance of his distinguished consideration. 

Edward Everett. 
The Earl of Aberdeen, &c, &c, &c. 

Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster. — [extracts.] 

Legation of the United States, London, June 1, 1842. 

Having received a letter from the owners of the " Tigris," 
inclosing an additional statement of their claim, I addressed a 
note to Lord Aberdeen transmitting a copy of the letter and 
statement. This will serve, for the present, to keep the sub- 
ject before the government. If, within a reasonable time, I do 
not hear from them in reference to this claim, I shall press for 
its prompt adjustment, and at the same time inquire what prog- 
ress has been made in the investigation of the other cases. A 
copy of my note to Lord Aberdeen on this subject is herewith 
transmitted. #.#### 

He (Lord Aberdeen) then observed that he had, within a 
day or two, received the statement of the officer by whom the 
" Tigris" was detained, and found that he was quite justified in 
her detention. I asked, on what ground ? He replied, that he 
acted in virtue of the special agreement between Lieutenant 
Paine and Commodore Tucker; adding, "This, to be sure, 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 153 

makes no difference in the question as between the two gov- 
ernments, since that agreement was disavowed by yours ; but 
it will relieve the officer of the personal responsibility, and 
throw it on the government." As this observation has a very 
important bearing on several cases of detention and capture 
which were discussed by Mr. Stevenson and Lord Palmerston, 
I must request your instructions on the subject of that agree- 
ment. ****** 

Meantime, you will please to understand that Lord Aber- 
deen distinctly stated that he did not intend, in consequence of 
the British officer (Lieutenant Matson, of the "Waterwitch") 
having acted under Lieutenant Paine's arrangement, to depart 
from his agreement to indemnify the owners of the " Tigris." 

I observed to Lord Aberdeen, that, though it was not my 
business to interfere in any question between Lieutenant Mat- 
son and his government, I could not but remark to him that 
this officer himself, in a kind of circular letter, which he sent 
with the M Tigris" addressed to the courts of the United States, 
affirmed that he had taken upon himself the responsibility of 
detaining the " Tigris," and that he had received no orders or 
instructions to interfere with vessels belonging to citizens of 
the United States, whatever their employment might be. I 
added, that it seemed to me extraordinary that he should thus 
express himself, if, in fact, he was acting under specific instruc- 
tions from the British commodore, given in consequence of the 
agreement with Mr. Paine. It looked like an after-thought on 
Mr. Matson's part. Lord Aberdeen was of a different opinion, 
but did not appear to have adverted particularly to the terms 
of Lieutenant Matson's letter, although they were quoted by 
me in the note which I addressed to him on the 21st of Feb- 
ruary. 

[inclosure.] 

46 Grosvenor Place, May 26, 1842. 
Mr. Everett presents his compliments to the Earl of Aber- 
deen, and has the honor to inform his lordship that, on the re- 
ceipt of Lord Aberdeen's note of the 17th of March, Mr. 
Everett lost no time in acquainting the owners of the " Tigris" 
with the purpose of her majesty's government to indemnify 
them for the losses sustained by the capture of their vessel. 
In conformity with the request of the Earl of Aberdeen, Mr. 
Everett desired the owners of the " Tigris" to transmit to him 
an authenticated statement of the damage they had sustained. 
This had been, in part, already done in the statement previously 
received by Mr. Everett from the Department of State at 
Washington, a copy of which was communicated by Mr. 
Everett to the Earl of Aberdeen on the 29th of March. 



154 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

Mr. Everett has within a few days received a letter from 
the owners of the " Tigris" inclosing an additional statement 
of their losses, which letter and the accompanying statement 
are herewith inclosed, in further compliance with Lord Aber- 
deen's request. 

The Earl of Aberdeen, &c, &c, &c. 

Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster. — [extract.] 

London, June 17, 1842. 

In my last dispatch I repeated a conversation which took 
place between Lord Aberdeen and myself, at the levee on the 
1st instant, on the subject of compensation for the " Seamew" 
another of the vessels detained, searched, and sent out of her 
course in the African seas. Having waited a reasonable time 
without hearing further from Lord Aberdeen on the subject, I 
addressed him a note on the 13th instant, a copy of which is 
inclosed. I received on the 15th a private note from Lord 
Canning, the first Under Secretary of State, informing me that 
I should have an official answer to mine of the 13th in time for 
the next mail steamer. Accordingly, I received last evening 
a note from Lord Aberdeen, dated the 16th, which I herewith 
transmit, and which contains the official annunciation that this 
government will indemnify the owners of the " Seamew' for the 
loss sustained by the detention of their vessel. Lord Aber- 
deen's note contains some remarks on the subject of the treat- 
ment of the crew of the " Seamew" while on board the " Per- 
sian" (the British cruiser), the object of which is to show that 
the statement of the mate of the " Seamew," in reference to that 
matter, is false or exaggerated. It is of no great importance 
to pursue the discussion of such a point, although we must not 
allow it to be taken for granted that the statements of their 
people are necessarily true, and those of our officers and men 
false. I shall, in acknowledging the receipt of Lord Aber- 
deen's note, take care to protest against any such assumption. 

As I am furnished in advance with documentary evidence, 
which I suppose will be sufficient to establish the amount of the 
loss in the case of the "Seamew" as well as that of the " Tigris" 
I anticipate no unreasonable delay in the final liquidation of the 
claims. 

When the various modes are considered in which it would 
have been possible, pending the general negotiations at Wash- 
ington, to postpone all final action on any cases of this kind 
without a positive denial of justice, I think the President will 
find, in the handsome manner in which reparation has been 
promised in these two cases, the proof of a sincere willingness 
on the part of the present ministry to do us justice. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 155 



[iNCLOSURE.] 

Legation of the United States, 46 Grosvenor Place, June 13, 1842 

My Lord, — At her majesty's levee, on the 1st instant, your 
lordship remarked to me that, from a cursory examination of 
papers recently transmitted from the Admiralty to the Foreign 
Office, relative to the detention and search of American vessels 
in the African seas, your lordship was led to think that, besides 
the case of the " Tigris," there was another case (your lordship 
thought that of the " Seamew") in which compensation would 
be found due from her majesty's government to the owners. I 
have now the honor respectfully to inquire whether there is any 
objection to my communicating this expression of your lord- 
ship's opinion to the government of the United States and the 
owners of the vessel, in my dispatches to be forwarded on the 
19th instant. 

The salutary influence of the annunciation in the United 
States of the decision of her majesty's government in the case 
of the " Tigris" and a persuasion that this influence would be 
greatly increased by the information I am desirous of com- 
municating, form, with my conviction of the justice and reason- 
ableness of the claims in question, my motives for submitting 
the present inquiry. 

I have the honor to tender your lordship the assurance of 
my most distinguished consideration. Edward Everett. 
The Earl of Aberdeen, &c, &c, &c. 

[iNCLOSURE.] 

Foreign Office, June 16, 1842. 

The undersigned, her majesty's principal Secretary of State 
for Foreign Affairs, has the honor to refer Mr. Everett, envoy 
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States 
of America, to the several communications which have passed 
between her majesty's government and the legation of the 
United States relative to the case of the United States vessel 
" Seamew" detained by her majesty's ship " Persian," Com- 
mander Quin. 

The undersigned has now the honor to inform Mr. Everett, 
that her majesty's government, having received the information 
collected on this subject, and having fully considered the case, 
have come to the conclusion that the seizure and detention of 
the " Seamew" by her majesty's ship " Persian" was not war- 
ranted either by the general law of nations, or by any partic- 
ular treaty between this country and the United States of 
America. 

There appears to be no doubt that the " Seamew" was 
not merely sailing under American colors, but that she was 



156 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

also bona fide American property, and manned by an American 
crew. A British cruiser had, therefore, no right to capture 
her, and her majesty's government acknowledge that the case 
is one in which compensation may justly be demanded by the 
government of the United States. 

The undersigned, however, is glad to have it in his power 
to inform Mr. Everett, that while the evidence given in the 
course of the inquiry instituted into this case shows that Com- 
mander Quin was by no means justified in interfering with the 
" Seamew," it satisfactorily disproves the evidently inflamed 
and exaggerated statements made by some of the crew of that 
vessel as to the conduct of the officers of her majesty's ship 
" Persian," and their own personal sufferings on the voyage to 
St. Helena. 

It is due to the memory of Commander Quin, and to the 
other officers of her majesty's navy concerned in this matter, 
to state that all possible care was taken in moving the cargo 
of the " Seamew" during the search ; that it was restored safe 
and in good condition, exactly as before ; and that the charge 
of carousing and riotous conduct preferred against the officer 
and petty officer of her majesty's ship " Persian" is most posi- 
tively and fully denied. 

With regard to the treatment experienced by the crew of the 
" Seamew" on board the " Persian," it may be sufficient to state 
that they were placed in the messes of the lower deck of that 
sloop, which were on full allowance of all provisions ; and that, 
so far from any complaint being made, or any dissatisfaction 
shown by them, they, on the decease of Commander Quin, 
asked and obtained permission to show their respect for that 
officer by following his body to the grave; and that, finally, 
Mr. Shreve, the second mate of the " Seamew," was landed 
with his own men at St. Helena, at his own request ; and, be- 
fore he left the vessel, came to the officer in command of the 
" Persian," on the quarter-deck, and thanked him for the kind- 
ness they had received while on board that sloop. 

It now only remains for the undersigned to inform Mr. 
Everett that the statement made by the owners of the " Sea- 
mew" as to the losses they have sustained, and which was in- 
closed in Mr. Everett's note to the undersigned of the 29th of 
March last, will be transmitted to the proper department, in 
order that, as soon as the account shall have been substantiated 
to the satisfaction of her majesty's government, it may at once 
be settled. 

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to 
Mr. Everett the assurance of his distinguished consideration. 

Aberdeen. 

Edward Everett, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 157 



Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster. — [extract.] 

Legation of the United States, London, July 1, 1842. 
# • # # # # # # 

With my last dispatch I transmitted a note from the Earl of 
Aberdeen, announcing the purpose of this government to make 
compensation to the owners of the " Sea-mew." I now beg leave 
to send you my answer to Lord Aberdeen's note. Although 
the discussion of the conduct of the British boarding officers is 
of no great interest, I thought it necessary to reply to the re- 
marks of Lord Aberdeen on that point. 

[inclosure.] 

Legation of the United States, June 30, 1842. 

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo- 
tentiary of the United States of America, has the honor to ac- 
knowledge the receipt of a note of the 16th instant from the 
Earl of Aberdeen, her majesty's principal Secretary of State 
for Foreign Affairs, announcing the intention of her majesty's 
government to make compensation to the owners of the " Sea- 
mew" for the loss sustained by them in consequence of the de- 
tention of their vessel on the coast of Africa, on the 27th of 
October, 1840. 

The undersigned has had great pleasure in transmitting this 
note to his government, by whom he is sure it will be regarded 
as a new and highly satisfactory proof of the purpose of the 
government of her majesty to render full and prompt justice to 
the citizens of the United States who have suffered losses by 
the detention and capture of their vessels by her majesty's 
cruisers in the African seas. 

The undersigned supposes that the documents already trans- 
mitted by him to the Earl of Aberdeen relative to the " Tigris" 
and " Seamew" — the property of the same owners — will be 
deemed to contain a satisfactory statement of the nature and 
amount of their losses. The originals of those documents will 
be furnished to Lord Aberdeen whenever his lordship may be 
pleased to express a wish to that effect. The undersigned is 
persuaded the moderation of the estimates will not escape 
Lord Aberdeen's notice, and will contribute to a speedy and 
satisfactory settlement of the claims. 

In reference to Lord Aberdeen's remark on what his lord- 
ship considers " the evidently inflamed and exaggerated state- 
ments made by some of the crew of the ' Seamew,' " the under- 
signed will observe that if such be indeed the character of their 
statements, it ought to be remembered that, on any supposition 
as to facts, the provocation was extreme. If the master and 
crew of an unarmed merchantman, unlawfully dispossessed of 



158 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

their vessel, and their property contained in it, carried by force 
on board a foreign cruiser, and finally compelled to find their 
way home as they can, should relate what had happened in 
terms of exaggeration, and even bitterness, the candor of Lord 
Aberdeen will admit that it would not be matter of reproach 
or wonder. 

The most serious of the complaints against the officers of the 
" Persian" are made on oath by the captain and mate of the 
u Seamew" The undersigned admits that they are not impar- 
tial witnesses, but they have no strong interest to exaggerate 
the ill-treatment which they say they received. Without any 
desire to impeach the credibility of the evidence given in be- 
half of the officers of the " Persian" if, as the undersigned sup- 
poses, their personal liability depends in some degree upon 
their conduct in boarding and overhauling the vessel, they 
have a direct and powerful interest to represent their behavior 
in the most favorable manner. 

That the cargo of the "Seamew" "was restored safe and in 
good condition exactly as before," would seem to be, in the 
nature of things, scarcely possible. It could not be believed, 
but on the strongest and most unexceptionable evidence, that 
a man-of-war's crew, overhauling a foreign merchantman in a 
distant sea, under suspicion of being concerned in the slave 
trade, and displacing and replacing her whole cargo in one 
operation, should perform it with the same care with which 
that cargo was gradually laid in by those whose livelihood de- 
pends on the manner in which their work is performed : men 
admitted to be the most prudent and careful mariners in the 
world. It appears, moreover, from the report of the persons 
by whom the " Seamew" was surveyed at St. Helena — two of 
whom were American and two British captains of vessels — 
that the cargo, on the arrival of the vessel there, was actually 
found in a condition in which scarce any evidence would per- 
suade the undersigned that a Salem shipmaster had originally 
stowed it. The undersigned, &c. 

Edward Everett. 

The Earl of Aberdeen, &c, &c, &c. 

[iNCLOSURE.] 

Department of State, Washington, February, 1843. 

The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred a resolu- 
tion of the House of Representatives of the 22d instant, request- 
in°- that the President of the United States " communicate to 
that House, if not in his opinion improper, whatever corre- 
spondence or communication may have been received from the 
British government respecting the President's construction of 
the latelSritish treaty concluded at Washington, as it concerns 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 159 

an alleged right to visit American vessels," has the honor to 
report to the President that Mr. Fox, her Britannic majesty's 
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, came to the 
Department of State on the 24th instant, and informed the 
Secretary that he had received from Lord Aberdeen, her ma- 
jesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a dis- 
patch, under date of the 18th of January, which he was di- 
rected to read to the Secretary of State of the United States. 
The substance of the dispatch was, that there was a statement 
in a paragraph of the President's Message to Congress, at the 
opening of the present session, of serious import, because, to 
persons unacquainted with the facts, it would tend to convey 
the supposition not only that the question of the right of search 
had been disavowed by the plenipotentiary at Washington, but 
that Great Britain had made concessions on that point. 

That the President knew that the right of search never 
formed the subject of discussion during the late negotiation, 
and that neither was any concession required by the United 
States government, nor made by Great Britain. 

That the engagement entered into by the parties to the 
treaty of Washington for suppressing the African slave trade 
was unconditionally proposed and agreed to. 

That the British government saw in it an attempt, on the 
part of the government of the United States, to give a practical 
effect to their repeated declarations against that trade, and rec- 
ognized with satisfaction an advance toward the humane and 
enlightened policy of all Christian states, from which they an- 
ticipated much good. That Great Britain would scrupulously 
fulfill the conditions of this engagement, but that from the prin- 
ciples which she has constantly asserted, and which are re- 
corded in the correspondence between the ministers of the 
United States in England and herself in 1841, England has not 
receded, and would not recede. That he had no intention to 
renew, at present, the discussion upon the subject. That his 
last note was yet unanswered. That the President might be 
assured that Great Britain would always respect the just claims 
of the United States. That the British government made no 
pretension to interfere, in any manner whatever, either by 
detention, visit, or search, with vessels of the United States, 
known or believed to be such ; but that it still maintained, and 
would exercise, when necessary, its own right to ascertain the 
genuineness of any flag which a suspected vessel might bear; 
that if, in the exercise of this right, either from involuntary 
error, or in spite of every precaution, loss or injury should be 
sustained, a prompt reparation would be afforded ; but that it 
should entertain, for a single instant, the notion of abandoning 
-he right itself, would be quite impossible. 



160 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

That these observations had been rendered necessary by the 
message to Congress. That the President is undoubtedly at 
liberty to address that assembly in any terms which he may 
think proper ; but if the queen's servants should not deem it 
expedient to advise her majesty also to advert to these topics 
in her speech from the throne, they desired, nevertheless, to 
hold themselves perfectly free, when questioned in Parliament, 
to give all such explanations as they might feel to be inconsist- 
ent with their duty and necessary for the elucidation of the truth. 

The paper having been read and its contents understood, 
Mr. Fox was told, in reply, that the subject would be taken 
into consideration, and that a dispatch relative to it would be 
sent at an early day to the American minister in London, who 
would have instructions to read it to her majesty's principal 
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 

Daniel Webster. 

To the President. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Everett. 

Department of State, Washington, March 28, 1843. 

Sir, — I transmit to you with this dispatch a message from 
the President of the United States to Congress, communicated 
on the 27th of February, and accompanied by a report made 
from this department to the President, of the substance of a dis- 
patch from Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Fox, which was by him read 
to me on the 24th ultimo. 

Lord Aberdeen's dispatch, as you will perceive, was occa- 
sioned by a passage in the Presid'ent's message to Congress at 
the opening of its late session. The particular passage is not 
stated by his lordship ; but no mistake will be committed, it is 
presumed, in considering it to be that which was quoted by 
Sir Robert Peel and other gentlemen in the debate in the House 
of Commons, on the answer to the queen's speech, on the 3d 
of February. 

The President regrets that it should have become necessary 
to hold a diplomatic correspondence upon the subject of a com- 
munication from the head of the executive government to the 
Legislature, drawing after it, as in this case, the further neces- 
sity of referring to observations made by persons in high and 
responsible stations, in debates of public bodies. Such a ne- 
cessity, however, seems to be unavoidably incurred in conse- 
quence of Lord Aberdeen's dispatch ; for, although the Pres- 
ident's recent message may be regarded as a clear exposition 
of his opinions on the subject, yet a just respect for her majes- 
ty's government, and a disposition to meet all questions with 
promptness, as well as with frankness and candor, require that 
a formal answer should be made to that dispatch. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 161 

The words in the message at the opening of the session which 
are complained of, it is supposed, are the following : -'Although 
Lord Aberdeen, in his correspondence with the American en- 
voys at London, expressly disclaimed all right to detain an 
American ship on the high seas, even if found with a cargo of 
slaves on board, and restricted the British pretension to a mere 
claim to visit and inquire, yet it could not well be discerned by 
the executive of the United States how such visit and inquiry 
could be made without detention on the voyage, and consequent 
interruption to the trade. It was regarded as the right of 
search, presented only in a new form, and expressed in differ- 
ent words ; and I therefore felt it to be my duty distinctly to 
declare, in my annual message to Congress, that no such con- 
cession could be made, and that the United States had both the 
will and the ability to enforce their own laws, and to protect 
their liag from being used for purposes wholly forbidden by 
those laws, and obnoxious to the moral censure of the world." 

This statement would tend, as Lord Aberdeen thinks, to con- 
vey the supposition, not only that the question of the right of 
search had been disavowed by the British plenipotentiary at 
Washington, but that Great Britain had made concessions on 
that point. 

Lord Aberdeen is entirely correct in saying that the claim 
of a right of search was not discussed during the late negotia- 
tion, and that neither was any concession required by this gov- 
ernment, nor made by that of her Britannic majesty. 

The 8th and 9th articles of the Treaty of Washington con- 
stitute a mutual stipulation for concerted efforts to abolish the 
African slave trade. This stipulation, it may be admitted, has 
no other effects on the pretensions of either party than this : 
Great Britain had claimed as a right that which this govern- 
ment could not admit to be a right, and, in the exercise of a 
just and proper spirit of amity, a mode was resorted to which 
might render unnecessary both the assertion and the denial of 
such claim. 

There probably are those who think that what Lord Aber- 
deen calls a right of visit, and which he attempts to distinguish 
from the right of search, ought to have been expressly ac- 
knowledged by the government of the United States ; at the 
same time, there are those on the other side who think that the 
formal surrender of such right of visit should have been de- 
manded by the United States as a precedent condition to the 
negotiation for treaty stipulations on the subject of the African 
slave trade. But the treaty neither asserts the claim in terms, 
nor denies the claim in terms ; it neither formally insists upon 
it, nor formally renounces it. Still, the whole proceeding 
shows that the object of the stipulation was to avoid such dif- 

L 



162 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

ferences and disputes as had already arisen, and the serious 
practical evils and inconveniences which, it can not be denied, 
are always liable to result from the practice which Great Brit- 
ain had asserted to be lawful. These evils and inconvenien- 
ces had been acknowledged by both governments. They had 
been such as to cause much irritation, and to threaten to dis- 
turb the amicable sentiments which prevailed between them. 
Both governments we-re sincerely desirous of abolishing the 
slave trade; both governments were equally desirous of avoid- 
ing occasion of complaint by their respective citizens and sub- 
jects ; and both governments regarded the 8th and 9th articles 
as effectual for their avowed purpose, and likely, at the same 
time, to preserve all friendly relations, and to take away causes 
of future individual complaints. The Treaty of Washington 
was intended to fulfill the obligations entered into by the Treaty 
of Ghent. It stands by itself; is clear and intelligible. It 
speaks its own language, and manifests its own purpose. It 
needs no interpretation, and requires no comment. As a fact, 
as an important occurrence in national intercourse, it may 
have important bearings on existing questions respecting the 
public law ; and individuals, or perhaps governments, may not 
agree as to what these bearings really are. Great Britain has 
discussions, if not controversies, with other great European 
states upon the subject of visit or search. These states will 
naturally make their own commentary on the Treaty of Wash- 
ington, and draw their own inferences from the fact that such 
a treaty has been entered into. Its stipulations, in the mean 
time, are plain, explicit, and satisfactory to both parties, and 
will be fulfilled on the part of the United States, and, it is not 
doubted, on the part of Great Britain also, with the utmost good 
faith. 

Holding this to be the true character of the treaty, I might, 
perhaps, excuse myself from entering into the consideration of 
the grounds of that claim of a right to visit merchant ships for 
certain purposes, in time of peace, which Lord Aberdeen as- 
serts for the British government, and declares that it can never 
surrender. But I deem it right, nevertheless, and no more than 
justly respectful toward the British government, not to leave 
the point without remark. 

In his recent message to Congress, the President, referring 
to the language of Lord Aberdeen in his note to Mr. Everett 
of the 20th of December, 1841, and in his late dispatch to Mr. 
Fox, says: "These declarations may well lead us to doubt 
whether the apparent difference between the tw T o governments 
is not rather one of definition than of principle." 

Lord Aberdeen, in his note to you of the 20th of December, 
says: "The undersigned again renounces, as he has already 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 163 

done in the most explicit terms, any right on the part of the 
British government to search American vessels in time of 
peace. The right of search, except when specially conceded 
by treaty, is a purely belligerent right, and can have no exist- 
ence on the high seas during peace. The undersigned appre- 
hends, however, that the right of search is not confined to the 
verification of the nationality of the vessel, but also extends to 
the object of the voyage and the nature of the cargo. The 
sole purpose of the British cruisers is to ascertain whether the 
vessels they meet with are really American or not. The right 
asserted has, in truth, no resemblance to the right of search, 
either in principle or practice. It is simply a right to satisfy 
the party who has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth, 
that the vessel actually is what her colors announce. This 
right we concede as freely as we exercise. The British cruis- 
ers are not instructed to detain American vessels under any 
circumstances whatever ; on the contrary, they are ordered to 
abstain from all interference with them, be they slavers or 
otherwise. But where reasonable suspicion exists that the 
American flag has been abused for the purpose of covering the 
vessel of another nation, it would appear scarcely credible, 
had it not been made manifest by the repeated protestations 
of their representative, that the government of the United 
States, which has stigmatized and abolished the trade itself, 
should object to the adoption of such means as are indispensa- 
bly necessary for ascertaining the truth." 

And in his recent dispatch to Mr. Fox, his lordship further 
says, " that the President might be assured that Great Britain 
would always respect the just claims of the United States. 
That the British government made no pretension to interfere 
in any manner whatever, either by detention, visit, or search, 
with vessels of the United States, known or believed to be 
such ; but that it still maintained, and would exercise when 
necessary, its own right to ascertain the genuineness of any 
flag which a suspected vessel might bear ; that if, in the exer- 
cise of this right, either from involuntary error, or in spite of 
every precaution, loss or injury should be sustained, a prompt 
reparation would be afforded ; but that it should entertain, for 
a single instant, the notion of abandoning the right itself, would 
be quite impossible." 

This, then, is the British claim, as asserted by her majesty's 
government. 

In his remarks in the speech already referred to, in the 
House of Commons, the first minister of the crown said : 
" There is nothing more distinct than the right of visit is from 
the right of search. Search is a belligerent right, and not to 
be exercised in time of peace, except when it has been conced- 



IG4 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

ed by treaty. The right of search extends not only to the ves- 
sel, but to the cargo also. The right of visit is quite distinct 
from this, though the two are often confounded. The right of 
search, with respect to American vessels, we entirely and ut- 
terly disclaim ; nay, more, if we knew that an American ves- 
sel were furnished with all the materials requisite for the slave 
trade ; if we knew that the decks were prepared to receive 
hundreds of human beings within a space in which life is al- 
most impossible, still we should be bound to let that American 
vessel pass on. But the right we claim is to know whether a 
vessel pretending to be American, and hoisting the American 
flag, be bona fide American." 

The President's Message is regarded as holding opinions in 
opposition to these. 

The British government, then, supposes that the right of visit 
and the right of search are essentially distinct in their nature, 
and that this difference is well known and generally acknowl- 
edged ; that the difference between them consists in their dif- 
ferent objects and purposes : one, the visit, having for its ob- 
ject nothing but to ascertain the nationality of the vessel ; the 
other, the search, by an inquisition, not only into the nationali- 
ty of the vessel, but the nature and object of her voyage, and 
the true ownership of her cargo. 

The government of the United States, on the other hand, 
maintains that there is no such well-known and acknowledged, 
nor, indeed, any broad and generic difference between what has 
been usually called visit, and what has been usually called 
search ; that the right of visit, to be effectual, must come, in 
the end, to include search ; and thus to exercise, in peace, an 
authority which the law of nations only allows in times of war. 
If such well-known distinction exists, where are the proofs of 
it? What writers of authority on public law, what adjudica- 
tions in courts of Admiralty, what public treaties recognize it? 
No such recognition has presented itself to the government of 
the United States ; but, on the contrary, it understands that 
public writers, courts of law, and solemn treaties have, for two 
centuries, used the words " visit" and "search" in the same sense. 
What Great Britain and the United States mean by the "right 
of search," in its broadest sense, is called by Continental writ- 
ers and jurists by no other name than the " right of visit." 
Visit, therefore, as it has been understood, implies not only a 
right to inquire into the national character, but to detain the 
vessel, to stop the progress of the voyage, to examine papers, 
to decide on their regularity and authenticity, and to make in- 
quisition on board for enemy's property, and into the business 
which the vessel is engaged in. In other words, it describes 
the entire right of belligerent visitation and search. Such a 






DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 165 



right is justly disclaimed by the British government in time of 
peace. They, nevertheless, insist on a right which they de- 
nominate a right of visit, and by that word describe the claim 
which they assert. It is proper, and due to the importance 
and delicacy of the questions involved, to take care that, in 
discussing them, both governments understand the terms which 
may be used in the same sense. If, indeed, it should be mani- 
fest that the difference between the parties is only verbal, it 
might be hoped that no harm would be done ; but the govern- 
ment of the United States thinks itself not justly chargeable 
with excessive jealousy, or with too great scrupulosity in the 
use of words, in insisting on its opinion that there is no such 
distinction as the British government maintains between visit 
and search ; and that there is no right to visit in time of peace, 
except in the execution of revenue laws or other municipal 
regulations, in which cases the right is usually exercised near 
the coast, or within the marine league, or where the vessel is 
justly suspected of violating the law of nations by piratical 
aggression ; but, wherever exercised, it is a right of search. 
Nor can the United States government agree that the term 
" right" is justly applied to such exercise of power as the British 
government thinks it indispensable to maintain in certain cases. 

The right asserted is a right to ascertain whether a mer- 
chant vessel is justly entitled to the protection of the flag which 
she may happen to have hoisted, such vessel being in circum- 
stances which render her liable to the suspicion, first, that she 
is not entitled to the protection of the flag ; and, secondly, that, 
if not entitled to it, she is, either by the law of England, as an 
English vessel, or under the provisions of treaties with certain 
European powers, subject to the supervision and search of 
British cruisers. 

And yet Lord Aberdeen says, " that if, in the exercise of this 
right, either from involuntary error, or in spite of every pre- 
caution, loss or injury should be sustained, a prompt repara- 
tion would be afforded." 

It is not easy to perceive how these consequences can be 
admitted justly to flow from the fair exercise of a clear right. 
If injury be produced by the exercise of a right, it would seem 
strange that it should be repaired, as if it had been the effect 
of a wrongful act. The general rule of law certainly is, that, 
in the proper and prudent exercise of his own right, no one is 
answerable for undesigned injuries. It may be said that the 
right is a qualified right ; that it is a right to do certain acts 
of force at the risk of turning out to be wrong-doers, and of 
being made answerable for all damages. But such an argu- 
ment would prove every trespass to be matter of right, subject 
only to just responsibility. If force were allowed to such rea- 



166 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

soning in other cases, it would follow that an individual's right 
in his own property was hardly more than a well-founded 
claim for compensation if he should be deprived of it. But 
compensation is that which is rendered for injury, and is not 
commutation, or forced equivalent, for acknowledged right* 
It implies, at least in its general interpretation, the commission 
of some wrongful act. 

But, without pressing further these inquiries into the accura- 
cy and propriety of definitions and the use of words, I proceed 
to draw your attention to the thing itself, and to consider what 
these acts are which the British government insists its cruis- 
ers have a right to perform, and to what consequences they 
naturally and necessarily tend. An eminent member of the 
House of Commons thus states the British claim, and his state- 
ment is acquiesced in and adopted by the first minister of the 
crown : 

" The claim of this country is for the right of our cruisers to 
ascertain whether a merchant vessel is justly entitled to the 
protection of the flag which she may happen to have hoisted, 
such vessel being in circumstances which rendered her liable 
to the suspicion, first, that she was not entitled to the protec- 
tion of the flag ; and, secondly, if not entitled to it, she was, 
either under the law of nations or the provisions of treaties, 
subject to the supervision and control of our cruisers."* 

Now the question is, by what means is this ascertainment to 
be effected ? 

As we understand the general and settled rules of public 
law, in respect to ships of war sailing under the authority of 
their government, " to arrest pirates and other public offend- 
ers," there is no reason why they may not approach any ves- 
sels descried at sea for the purpose of ascertaining their real 
characters. Such a right of approach seems indispensable for 
the fair and discreet exercise of their authority ; and the use 
of it can not be justly deemed indicative of any design to insult 
or injure those they approach, or to impede them in their law- 
ful commerce. On the other hand, it is as clear that no ship 
is, under such circumstances, bound to lie by, or wait the ap- 
proach of any other ship. She is at full liberty to pursue her 
voyage in her own way, and to use all necessary precautions 
to avoid any suspected sinister enterprise or hostile attack. 
Her right to the free use of the ocean is as perfect as that of 
any other ship. An entire equality is presumed to exist. She 
has a right to consult her own safety, but at the same time she 
must take care not to violate the rights of others. She may 
use any precautions dictated by the prudence or fears of her 
officers, either as to delay, or the progress or course of her 

* Mr. Wood, now Sir Charles Wood, Chancellor of the Exchequer. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 1G7 

voyage ; but she is not at liberty to inflict injuries upon other 
innocent parties simply because of conjectural dangers. 

But if the vessel thus approached attempts to avoid the ves- 
sel approaching, or does not comply with her commander's or- 
der to send him her papers for his inspection, nor consent to 
be visited or detained, what is next to be done 1 Is force to be 
used ? And if force be used, may that force be lawfully repel- 
led ? These questions lead at once to the elemental principle 
— the essence of the British claim. Suppose the merchant ves- 
sel be in truth an American vessel engaged in lawful commerce, 
and that she does not choose to be detained. Suppose she re- 
sists the visit. What is the consequence? In all cases in 
which the belligerent right of visit exists, resistance to the ex- 
ercise of that right is regarded as just cause of condemnation, 
both of vessel and cargo. Is that penalty, or what other pen- 
alty, to be incurred by resistance to visit in time of peace ? Or 
suppose that force be met by force, gun returned for gun, and 
the commander of the cruiser, or some of his seamen, be killed ; 
what description of offense will have been committed? It 
would be said, in behalf of the commander of the cruiser, that 
he mistook the vessel for a vessel of England, Brazil, or Portu- 
gal ; but does this mistake of his take away from the American 
vessel the right of self-defense ? The writers of authority de- 
clare it to be a principle of natural law, that the privilege of 
self-defense exists against an assailant who mistakes the object 
of his attack for another whom he had the right to assail. 

Lord Aberdeen can not fail to see, therefore, what serious 
consequences might ensue if it were to be admitted that this 
claim to visit, in time of peace, however limited or defined, 
should be permitted to exist as a strict matter of right ; for if 
it exist as a right, it must be followed by corresponding duties 
and obligations, and the failure to fulfill those duties would 
naturally draw penal consequences after it, till ere long it would 
become, in truth, little less, or little other than the belligerent 
right of search. 

If visit or visitation be not accompanied by search, it will be 
in most cases merely idle. A sight of papers may be demanded, 
and papers may be produced. But it is known that slave trad- 
ers carry false papers, and different sets of papers. A search 
for other papers, then, must be made where suspicion justifies 
it, or else the whole proceeding would be nugatory. In sus- 
picious cases, the language and general appearance of the crew 
are among the means of ascertaining the national character of 
the vessel. The cargo on board, also, often indicates the coun- 
try from which she comes. Her log-book, showing the previ- 
ous course and events of her voyage, her internal fitment and 
equipment, are all evidences for her, or against her, on her al- 



108 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

legation of character. These matters, it is obvious, can only 
be ascertained by rigorous search. 

It may be asked, if a vessel may not be called on to show 
her papers, why does she carry papers ? No doubt she may 
be called on to show her papers ; but the question is, where, 
when, and by whom ? Not in time of peace, on the high seas, 
where her rights are equal to the rights of any other vessel, and 
where none has a right to molest her. The use of her papers is, 
in time of war, to prove her neutrality when visited by belliger- 
ent cruisers ; and in both peace and war, to show her national 
character, and the lawfulness of her voyage, in those ports of 
other countries to which she may proceed for purposes of trade. 

It appears to the government of the United States that the 
view of this whole subject which is the most naturally taken is 
also the most legal, and most in analogy with other cases. 
British cruisers have a right to detain British merchantmen for 
certain purposes ; and they have a right, acquired by treaty, 
to detain merchant vessels of several other nations for the same 
purposes. But they have no right at all to detain an American 
merchant vessel. This Lord Aberdeen admits in the fullest 
manner. Any detention of an American vessel by a British 
cruiser is therefore a wrong — a trespass ; although it may be 
done under the belief that she was a British vessel, or that she 
belonged to a nation which had conceded the right of such de- 
tention to the British cruisers, and the trespass therefore an in- 
voluntary trespass. If a ship of war, in thick weather, or in 
the darkness of the night, fire upon and sink a neutral vessel, 
under the belief that she is an enemy's vessel, this is a trespass 
— a mere wrong ; and can not be said to be an act done under 
any right, accompanied by responsibility for damages. So if a 
civil officer on land have process against one individual, and 
through mistake arrest another, this arrest is wholly tortious: 
no one would think of saying that it was done under any law- 
ful exercise of authority, subject only to responsibility, or that 
it was any thing but a mere trespass, though an unintentional 
trespass. The municipal law does not undertake to lay down 
beforehand any rule for the government of such cases ; and as 
little, in the opinion of the government of the United States, 
does the public law of the world lay down beforehand any rule 
for the government of cases of involuntary trespasses, deten- 
tions, and injuries at sea ; except that in both classes of cases 
law and reason make a distinction between injuries committed 
through mistake and injuries committed by design : the former 
being entitled to fair and just compensation — the latter demand- 
ing exemplary damages, and sometimes personal punishment. 
The government of the United States has frequently made 
known its opinion, which it now repeats, that the practice of 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 169 

detaining American vessels, though subject to just compensa- 
tion, if such detention afterward turn out to have been without 
good cause, however guarded by instructions, or however cau- 
tiously exercised, necessarily leads to serious inconvenience 
and injury. The amount of loss can not be always well as- 
certained. Compensation, if it be adequate in the amount, may 
still necessarily be long delayed ; and the pendency of such 
claims always proves troublesome to the governments of both 
countries. These detentions, too, frequently irritate individu- 
als, cause warm blood, and produce nothing but ill effects on 
the amicable relations existing between the countries. We 
wish, therefore, to put an end to them, and to avoid all occa- 
sions for their recurrence. 

On the whole, the government of the United States, while it 
has not conceded a mutual right of visit or search, as has been 
done by the parties to the quintuple treaty of December, 1841, 
does not admit that, by the law and practice of nations, there 
is any such thing as a right of visit, distinguished by well-known 
rules and definitions from the right of search. 

It does not admit that visit of American merchant vessels by 
British cruisers is founded on any right, notwithstanding the 
cruiser may suppose such vessel to be British, Brazilian, or 
Portuguese. We can not but see that the detention and exam- 
ination of American vessels by British cruisers has already led 
to consequences — and fear that, if continued, it would still lead 
to further consequences — highly injurious to the lawful com- 
merce of the United States. 

At the same time, the government of the United States fully 
admits that its flag can give no immunity to pirates, nor to any 
other than to regularly documented American vessels. It was 
upon this view of the whole case, and with a firm conviction 
of the truth of these sentiments, that it cheerfully assumed the 
duties contained in the Treaty of Washington ; in the hope that 
thereby causes of difficulty and of difference might be altogeth- 
er removed, and that the two powers might be enabled to act 
concurrently, cordially, and effectually for the suppression of 
a traffic which both regard as a reproach upon the civilization 
of the age, and at war with every principle of humanity and 
every Christian sentiment. 

The government of the United States has no interest, nor 
is it under the influence of any opinions, which should lead it 
to desire any derogation of the just authority and rights of 
maritime power. But in the convictions which it entertains, 
and in the measures which it has adopted, it has been govern- 
ed solely by a sincere desire to support those principles and 
those practices which it believes to be conformable to public 
law, and favorable to the peace and harmony of nations. 



170 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

Both houses of Congress, with a remarkable degree of una- 
nimity, have made express provisions for carrying into effect 
the 8th article of the treaty. An American squadron will im- 
mediately proceed to the coast of Africa. Instructions for its 
commander are in the course of preparation, and copies will 
be furnished to the British government; and the President 
confidently believes that the cordial concurrence of the two 
governments, in the mode agreed on, will be more effectual 
than any efforts yet made for the suppression of the slave trade. 

You will read this dispatch to Lord Aberdeen, and, if he de- 
sire it, give him a copy. I am, sir, &c, &c, 

Daniel Webster. 

Edward Everett, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 

Mr. Cass to Mr. Wehster. 

Legation of the United States, Paris, February 15, 1842. 

Sir, — I have not heretofore considered it necessary to write 
you officially respecting the state of affairs here having rela- 
tion to the question of the right of search depending between 
the American and British governments. But though no direct 
diplomatic action seemed advisable till recently, I did not the 
less observe the progress of events, nor neglect, by proper con- 
versations and explanations with those who, from their posi- 
tion, influenced them, to convey a just notion of the subject, in 
its relation not only to the United States, but to all other mar- 
itime powers who do not seek the supremacy of the seas ; and 
I have the satisfaction to believe that my exertions were not 
wholly useless, either with respect to public opinion or to public 
measures. I have kept you informed, in my private communi- 
cations, of the progress of affairs, as well as of my own course 
of unofficial action ; and I have transmitted, also, such of the 
French journals as seemed, in addition to the other informa- 
tion, best calculated to convey to you a correct idea of the 
state of affairs here, and of public feeling. 

But I have just taken a step which renders necessary a full 
and free report of the condition of things here, and of the rea- 
sons which have led me to adopt this measure. My letter of 
the 13th instant to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (a copy of 
which I inclose) will make known to you my general senti- 
ments concerning the relation in which we are placed with the 
French government by the signature of the quintuple treaty for 
the suppression of the slave trade, and by the declarations of 
Lord Palmerston and Lord Aberdeen concerning the measures 
which they claim to be indispensable to its execution. I need 
add nothing upon this subject. 

I hesitated, at first, respecting the true course to be adopted. 
That it was proper to bring officially to the notice of the French 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 171 

government the declaration of that of Great Britain — that the 
conclusion of these treaties created an obligation and conferred 
a right to violate the flag of the United States — I did not en- 
tertain a doubt. What was true of the duty of one of the par- 
ties was true of the duty of each of them. Either, therefore, 
the claim of Great Britain was well-founded, and, in that event, 
the government of France was about to contract new obliga- 
tions, which might bring it into collision with the United States 
— a result I was certain it did not contemplate — or the claim 
was unjust, and, in that event, the treaty was about to be made 
the pretext of a direct attack upon our rights and honor by one 
of the parties, assuming to be governed by the obligations it 
had contracted toward the other associated powers ; a state 
of things which gave us a right to call upon them to disavow 
such pretensions, and either to withdraw from an arrangement 
which was becoming so menacing to us, or to declare, by a 
solemn act, that it was not susceptible of such a construction, 
and should not, with their consent, be employed for such a pur- 
pose. My first impression was, to present a formal protest 
against the ratification of the treaty ; but, considering that I 
had no instructions to take so decided a measure, and that it 
would be more respectful to the French government (of whose 
friendly disposition to the United States I have had numerous 
evidences), and probably quite as useful, to state generally the 
bearing of the whole matter upon the United States, without 
claiming any specific action, I finally determined to take this 
course, and the letter to M. Guizot is the consequence. 

I shall now proceed to make some remarks upon this gen- 
eral subject, which may not be useless in the consideration 
which the government will necessarily give to it. For some 
years the English journals have, with much art, turned the 
public attention of Europe from the great question of maritime 
right and of the freedom of the seas, involved in our discussions 
with Great Britain, connected with the measures to be adopted 
for the suppression of the slave trade, and directed it to that 
infamous traffic, sometimes asserting, and sometimes insinua- 
ting, that our opposition to the co-operation their government 
proposed originated in the miserable motive of profit — the prof- 
it to be derived from the most wretched of all commerce. But, 
thanks to the progress of truth, our case is now well under- 
stood upon the continent of Europe ; and, as in all sudden re- 
actions where injustice has been unwillingly done, the public 
sentiment here and elsewhere is setting strongly in our favor. 
The question has not again been presented in either ol the 
chambers ; but the indications in the journals, and in all socie- 
ties, are too clear to be misunderstood. 

Circumstances have placed us in a position which, if firmly 



172 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

maintained, will be equally honorable to ourselves, and useful 
to all other powers interested in the freedom of the seas. De- 
pend upon it, we have reached one of those epochs in the prog- 
ress of a nation to which history looks back, if not as decisive 
of its destiny, at all events as influencing it, and as controlling 
its character and its conduct for a long series of years. En- 
gland has advanced a pretension which we can never submit 
to without dishonor; and, in its enunciation, she has spared 
our pride as little as our rights. On the 27th of August, 1841, 
she avows the determination, and claims the right, to search 
our ships ; and this interpolation into the law of nations is ad- 
vanced with a coolness which might well surprise us, if any 
thing could surprise us, in the march of human ambition. 

The pretension is not put forth as a debatable point, to be 
discussed between the two governments, and to be settled 
in a mutual spirit of amity. But Lord Palmerston distinctly 
tells us that the exemption of the vessels of the United States 
from search is a doctrine to which the British government 
never can nor will subscribe. And he adds, with a rare 
comity indeed, that he hopes the day is not far distant when 
the government of the United States will cease to confound 
two things which are in their nature entirely different — will 
look to things, and not to woi-ds — and, becoming wiser from the 
lessons thus taught, will suffer the British cruisers to search 
their vessels at all times and in all places, and content them- 
selves with calling it a visit ! For myself, I see no mutual con- 
cession by which the parties may be brought together. A 
contested territory may be divided, and a claim for pecuniary 
injury may be reduced and satisfied, but we can not divide a 
great principle — one of the attributes of our independence — 
nor reduce the sphere of its operation. We can only demand 
its inviolability with its just consequences. Under these cir- 
cumstances, the first question is, if we shall yield ; and that 
being answered in the negative, as I am satisfied it will be by 
the universal feeling of the country, the next is, will England 
yield ? It is our safer course to believe that she will not, and, 
looking to her line of policy, that, too, is our most rational 
course. Wherever she has planted her foot, whether on 
marsh, moor, or mountain, under the polar circles as under 
the tropics, I will not say never — that word does not belong to 
the deeds of war — but rarely has she voluntarily withdrawn it. 
Whenever she has asserted a pretension, she has adhered to it 
through evil report and through good report, in prosperity and 
in adversity, with an iron will and with a firm hand, of which the 
history of the world furnishes, perhaps, no equal example since 
the proudest days of the Roman empire. In this consistency of 
purpose, and in the excess even of patriotism which ministers 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 173 

to it, there is something noble and imposing ; and I am among 
the last to deny the beautiful traits of the English character, or 
the benefits which England has rendered to the world by her 
example and her efforts. But she is not the less dangerous in 
her schemes of ambition from these redeeming considerations ; 
and the time has come when we must look her designs in the 
face, and determine to resist or to yield. War is a great evil ; 
but there are evils greater than war, and among these is na- 
tional degradation. This we have never yet experienced, and 
I trust we never shall. If Lord Ashburton goes out with such 
modified propositions upon the various questions now pending 
between the two governments as you can honorably accept, 
the result will be a subject of lasting gratification to our coun- 
try ; and more particularly if, as I trust, before entering into 
any discussions, he is prepared to give such explanations as 
will show that we have misunderstood the intentions of the 
British government respecting this claim of a right to change 
the law of nations in order to accommodate it to their treaty 
stipulations, and its practical consequence — a claim to enter 
and search our vessels at all times and in all places. This 
preliminary proceeding would be worthy of the gravity of the 
circumstances, and equally honorable to both governments. It 
seems to me it is due to us. I allude to it in this connection 
because the subject now necessarily presents itself to the 
French government, and because I feel confident that they are 
not prepared to support the pretensions of Great Britain. 

We have already given one memorable example of modera- 
tion to the world in the rejection of a unanimous application 
from a neighboring people for admission into our confederacy; 
and this, too, of a territory among the most fertile and valua- 
ble upon the face of the earth, and destined to become our ri- 
val in the production of some of our richest staple articles. 
When accused of ambition, we may point to this proof of self- 
denial, and challenge an equal instance of its exercise. It is a 
fact worth volumes of professions of disinterestedness, and of 
disclaimers of all desire of self-aggrandizement. 

It is not to be disguised that the quintuple treaty for the sup- 
pression of the slave trade was intended to act upon the Unit- 
ed States by its moral force. As to France and England, their 
co-operation in the necessary measures for the abolition of that 
traffic was already secured by the treaties of 1831 and 1833; 
and as to Prussia, Russia, and Austria, I suppose neither of 
them ever had, or ever will have, a vessel engaged in that 
commerce. But it was hoped, certainly by one of the parties, 
that this great combination would either induce the United 
States to follow their example, and submit themselves to the 
measures indicated, or that it would lead to the establishment 



174 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

of some new principles of maritime law without them. But 
the subject is now so well understood that we have little to 
fear from this great combination, so long sought and so highly- 
applauded. Its moral force, as the " Journal des Debats" just- 
ly observes, is gone. The discussion in the Chamber of Dep- 
uties, and the almost unanimous condemnation of the treaty, 
will have indicated to you the true state of feeling here, and 
you will not fail to appreciate the importance of the emphatic 
declaration of Mr. Guizot, during the debates, that the Ameri- 
cans were right, and that France, in the same circumstances, 
would do the same tiling. The value of this testimonial to the 
justice of our course, made by such a statesman, in the face 
of Europe, can hardly be overrated. 

Our true policy is to discourage all great combinations hav- 
ing for their object the regulation of maritime principles and 
police. European confederations for the regulation of Euro- 
pean questions do not come within the sphere of our policy, as 
they touch neither our rights nor our interests. But when 
these powers extend their care and their jurisdiction over the 
ocean, I think the time has arrived for us to make ourselves 
heard. No nation is more interested than we are in the free- 
dom of commerce, and we do not advance a single pretension 
which can give just cause of umbrage to any other country. 
If, indeed, a general congress of nations could be assembled, 
where all might be represented, the weak as well as the strong, 
then we might fairly take our place there and recognize its de- 
cisions as obligatory. But this is a measure so doubtful in it- 
self, as well as in its consequences, that it is our interest, as it 
is the interest of all people who do not conceal any projects of 
aggrandizement in a professed desire to meliorate the maritime 
code of nations, to adhere to that code as they find it. This 
adherence to the established state of things is certainly not in- 
consistent with any arrangement which two nations may be 
disposed to make for a single purpose and for a limited time, 
to which they may be impelled by considerations of general 
benevolence. Certainly, if Great Britain and the United States 
choose to restrain their citizens from any traffic condemned by 
moral considerations, and to regulate their joint action upon 
the subject, they may do so without subjecting themselves to 
any imputations of interested or ambitious motives. Each 
must judge for itself whether such a combined movement is in 
accordance with its policy or with the nature of its institutions. 
Both may agree to keep squadrons upon the coast of Africa to 
suppress the slave trade, and upon the coast of China to sup- 
press the opium trade ; branches of commerce destructive of 
human life and happiness — the latter of which has the advant- 
age of being prohibited by the government of China, and the 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 175 

disadvantage, if we can credit but a small part of the state- 
ments of that government, of being far more injurious in its op- 
eration than the former. But these mutual agreements, dicta- 
ted by the most charitable motives, would act merely upon the 
citizens of the respective countries executing them, without 
overawing others by their imposing form, and without leading 
to the establishment of any new principle of maritime law. 

Nothing can explain to us more clearly the danger of these 
great combinations, if it does not reveal the object of one or 
more of the parties in their establishment, than the principle, 
so frankly developed by Lord Aberdeen, that this " happy con- 
currence" creates new duties and obligations, before whose 
justice and necessity the law of nations gives way, and to which 
the interests and independence of nations are sacrificed. I 
was, therefore, much pleased to read, in the message of the 
President of the United States to Congress at the commence- 
ment of the present session, his emphatic declaration that* the 
United States would not submit to any such pretension. The 
powers of Europe, strong or weak, must understand, if neces- 
sary, that our country, in taking her place in the family of na- 
tions, took it with the same rights as the greatest of them, and 
there will maintain it unmoved by any confederation which 
may be formed, and wholly without the sphere of its opera- 
tions. 

The quintuple treaty has not yet been ratified by France, 
nor will it be, I think, without some essential alterations. It is 
understood that the English government are much dissatisfied 
at this determination. The queen's speech, however, at the 
opening of the session, and Sir Robert Peel's remarks last 
week, in answer to a question of Lord Palmerston, seem to 
take for granted the French ratification. But, certainly, when 
the British premier made those remarks, he knew the discus- 
sion in the Chamber of Deputies and the state of public opin- 
ion here, and he ought to have known that a constitutional min- 
istry would hesitate before they would incur the responsibility 
of such an act. 

I observe that Lord Palmerston, in the remarks prefatory to 
his question, dwells upon the disinterestedness of his country and 
of the other parties to this treaty. This is the old topic of eulo- 
gy for England, as its reverse is intended to be of reproach for 
us. But its day has gone by. Europe fully understands the sub- 
ject ; and in public as in private life, it is not the most disinter- 
ested who are always avowing the purity of their intentions. 
One would think there were objects of misery enough at home 
to occupy the attention of any English statesman, without that 
excess of philanthropy which would tilt a spear at every na- 
tion, and light up the flames of a general war, in order to ac- 



178 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

complish its own charitable views in its own exclusive way, 
almost at the end of the world. It brings forcibly to recollec- 
tion one of the vagaries of Rousseau, that there are people who 
love those who are placed at the extremities of the earth, in 
order to excuse themselves for not loving their own neighbors. 
In all that precedes, I believe, there is not a word which, if 
need be, would not be re-echoed by every American citizen in 
Paris. We are here in the midst of stirring circumstances, 
and can form a safe judgment of the dangers which menace 
us. If England pushes her purpose into action, we shall have 
a severe struggle to encounter ; and the sooner and the more 
vigorously we prepare for it, the better. If she does not, we 
shall gain by our exhibition of firmness ; and the very state of 
preparations may lead her to recede. But permit me to press 
upon you the necessity of instant and extensive arrangements 
for offensive and defensive war. All other questions, person- 
al, local, and political, should give way before this paramount 
duty. England has fearful means of aggression. No man 
can yet tell the effect which the use of steam is to produce 
upon great warlike operations ; and, with her accustomed sa- 
gacity, she has accumulated a large force of steam-vessels. A 
hostile squadron might at any time carry to the United States 
the first news of war. And it would not be a war like the last 
one, conducted in many cases by incompetent officers, and fee- 
bly prosecuted ; but she would put forth her utmost strength, 
and she would be felt, and ought to be met at every assailable 
point. I can not but hope that the excellent suggestions of the 
Secretaries of War and of the Navy respecting national de- 
fense may find general support. 

You may naturally think that this is not a very diplomatic 
dispatch. It is not so, certainly, so far as diplomacy consists 
in mystery, either of thought or expression. I have felt strong- 
lv, and I have attempted to speak plainly. I do not belong to 
the school of that well-known French statesman who said that 
language was given to conceal thoughts. If necessary, I must 
claim your indulgence for my candor in consideration of my 
motives. I see the difficult position of my country, and most 
anxious am I that it should be seen and appreciated at home. 
That done, I have no fear for the result. If the sentiments I 
have expressed are not those of the government and people of 
my country, then I have lived a stirring life, and mixed with 
my countrymen in every situation, without having learned the 
American character. 

You will perceive that in my letter to M Guizot I have 
taken upon myself the responsibility of my interposition. Your 
course is perfectly free to avow or disavow my conduct. The 
President will decide as the public interest requires. I do not 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 177 

shut my eyes to the gravity of the circumstances in which I 
am placed. In the unforeseen emergency which presents it- 
self, I have pursued the course that appeared to me to be dic- 
tated by the honor and interest of our country, and I have the 
satisfaction to believe that my measures will not be wholly 
without beneficial results. It is now for the government to 
judge what is its own duty, and to determine whether my con- 
duct shall be approved or disapproved. 

I am, &c, Lewis Cass. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 

[iNCLOSURE.] 

Legation of the United States, Paris, February 13, 1842. 

Sir, — The recent signature of a treaty, having for its object 
the suppression of the African slave trade, by five of the pow- 
ers of Europe, and to which France is a party, is a fact of such 
general notoriety that it may be assumed as the basis ot any 
diplomatic representations which the subject may fairly require. 

The United States, being no party to this treaty, have no 
right to inquire into the circumstances which have led to it, 
nor into the measures it proposes to adopt, except so far as 
they have reason to believe that their rights may be involved 
in the course of its execution. Their own desire to put a stop 
to this traffic is every where known, as well as the early and 
continued efforts they have adopted to prevent their citizens 
from prosecuting it. They have been invited by the govern- 
ment of Great Britain to become a party to the treaty, which 
should regulate the action of the combined governments upon 
the subject. But, for reasons satisfactory to themselves, and 
I believe satisfactory to the world, they have declined this 
united action, and have chosen to pursue their own measures, 
and to act upon their own citizens only, without subjecting 
these to any kind of foreign jurisdiction. 

In a communication from Lord Palmerston, her Britannic 
majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to 
Mr. Stevenson, the American minister at London, dated the 
27th of August, 1841, Lord Palmerston claims a right for the 
British cruisers, and avows the intention of his government to 
exercise it, to search American vessels at sea in time of peace, 
with a view to ascertain their national character. He adds, 
that " this examination of papers of merchantmen suspected of 
being engaged in the slave trade, even though they hoist a 
United States flag, is a proceeding which it is absolutely nec- 
essary that British cruisers employed in the suppression ot the 
slave trade should continue to practice," &c, &c. 

In a communication from the successor of Lord Aberdeen to 
Mr. Stevenson, dated October 13, 1841, the views and determ- 

M 



178 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

ination announced in the first are confirmed ; and Lord Aber- 
deen thus states the ground upon which rests this pretension 
to search American vessels in time of peace : " But the under- 
signed must observe, that the present happy concurrence of the 
states of Christendom in this great object (the suppression of 
the slave trade) not merely justifies, but renders indispensable, 
the right now claimed and exercised by the British govern- 
ment ;" that is to say, the right of entering and examining 
American vessels, to ascertain their nationality. 

It is no part of my duty to offer any comments upon this 
pretension, nor upon the reasons advanced in support of it ; and 
if it were, I should find the duty far better performed for me 
than I could perform it for myself, in the annual message of the 
[President of the] United States to Congress of December 7, 
1841. In that document will be found the views of the Amer- 
ican government upon this subject ; and it is there emphatical- 
ly declared that, "however desirous the United States may be 
for the suppression of the slave trade, they can not consent to 
interpolations into the maritime code at the mere will and pleas- 
ure of other governments. We deny the right of any such in- 
terpolation to any one or all the nations of the earth, without our 
consent. We claim to have a voice in all amendments or al- 
terations of that code ; and when we are given to understand, 
as in this instance, by a foreign government that its treaties 
with other nations can not be executed without the establish- 
ment and enforcement of new principles of maritime police, to 
be applied without our consent, we must employ language nei- 
ther of equivocal import nor susceptible of misconstruction." 

You will perceive, sir, by these extracts, that the British 
government has advanced a pretension which it asserts to be 
indispensable to the execution of its treaties for the suppression 
of the slave trade, and to which the President of the United 
States has declared that the American government will not 
submit. This claim of search, it will be observed, arising, as 
is asserted, out of existing obligations, has relation to the iso- 
lated treaties for the abolition of this traffic which were in 
force at the date of the communications of Lord Palmerston 
and of Lord Aberdeen. It is now known that the combined 
treaty upon this subject is more extensive in its operations, and 
more minute in some of the details of its execution, than the 
separate treaties with France which preceded it, and equally 
indefinite in the duration of its obligations. Of course, meas- 
ures which were not only "justifiable, but indispensable" for the 
execution of the latter, will find equal justice and necessity in 
the obligations of the former. 

With this previous declaration made by one of the parties 
to this quintuple treaty concerning its operations, the Ameri- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 179 

can government can not shut their eyes to their true position. 
The moral effect which such a union of five great powers, two 
of which are eminently maritime, but three of which have, per- 
haps, never had a vessel engaged in that traffic, is calculated 
to produce upon the United States, and upon other nations 
who, like them, may be indisposed to these combined move- 
ments, though it may be regretted, yet furnishes no just cause 
of complaint. But the subject assumes another aspect when 
they are told by one of the parties that their vessels are to be 
forcibly entered and examined, in order to carry into effect 
these stipulations. Certainly the American government does 
not believe that the high powers, contracting parties to this 
treaty, have any wish to compel the United States, by force, 
to adopt their measures to its provisions, or to adopt its stipu- 
lations. They have too much confidence in their sense of jus- 
tice to fear any such result ; and they will see with pleasure 
the prompt disavowal made by yourself, sir, in the name of 
your country, at the tribune of the Chamber of Deputies, of 
any intentions of this nature. But were it otherwise, and were 
it possible they might be deceived in this confident expecta- 
tion, that would not alter in one tittle their course of action ; 
their duty would be the same, and the same would be their de- 
termination to fulfill it. They would prepare themselves with 
apprehension, indeed, but without dismay — with regret, but 
with firmness — for one of those desperate struggles which have 
sometimes occurred in the history of the world, but where a 
just cause and the favor of Providence have given strength to 
comparative weakness, and enabled it to break down the pride 
of power. 

But I have already said that the United States do not fear 
that any such united attempt will be made upon their inde- 
pendence. What, however, they may reasonably fear, and 
what they do fear, is, that in the execution of this treaty meas- 
ures will be taken which they must resist. How far the act 
of one of the parties putting its construction upon its own du- 
ties, and upon the obligations of its co-contractors, may involve 
these in any unlooked-for consequences, either by the adoption 
of similar measures or by their rejection, I do not presume to 
judge. Certain it is, however, that if the fact, and the princi- 
ple advanced by Lord Aberdeen, are correct, that these treat- 
ies for the abolition of the slave trade can not be executed 
without forcibly boarding American ships at sea in time of 
peace, and that the obligations created by them confer not only 
the right thus to violate the American flag, but make this meas- 
ure a duty, then it is also the duty of France to pursue the 
same course. Should she put this construction upon her obli- 
gations, it is obvious the United States must do to her as they 



180 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

will do to England if she persists in this attack upon their in- 
dependence. Should she not, it does not become me to inves- 
tigate the nature of her position with respect to one of her as- 
sociates, whose opinion respecting their relative duties would 
be so widely different from her own. But I may express the 
hope that the government of his majesty, before ratifying this 
treaty, will examine maturely the pretensions asserted by one 
of the parties, and see how these can be reconciled not only 
with the honor and interest of the United States, but with the 
received principles of the great maritime code of nations. I 
may make this appeal with the more confidence from the rela- 
tions subsisting between France and the United States, from a 
community of interest in the liberty of the seas, from a com- 
munity of opinion respecting the principles which guard it, and 
from a community in danger should it ever be menaced by the 
ambition of any maritime power. 

It appears to me, sir, that in asking the attention of his maj- 
esty's government to the subject of the quintuple treaty, with 
a view to its reconsideration, I am requesting nothing on the 
part of the United States inconsistent with the duties of France 
to other powers. If, during the course of the discussions upon 
this treaty, preparatory to the arrangement of its provisions, 
England had asserted to the other parties the pretension she 
now asserts to the United States, as a necessary consequence 
of its obligations, I can not be wrong in presuming that France 
would not have signed it without guarding against this impend- 
ing difficulty. The views of England are now disclosed to you, 
but fortunately before its ratification. And this change of cir- 
cumstances may well justify the French government in inter- 
posing such a remedy as it may think is demanded by the grave 
interests involved in this question. 

As to the treaties of 1831 and 1833, between France and 
Great Britain, for the suppression of the slave trade, I do not 
consider it my duty to advert to their stipulations. Their obli- 
gations upon the contracting parties, whatever these may be, 
are now complete ; and it is for my government alone to de- 
termine what measures the United States ought to take to avert 
the consequences with which they are threatened by the con- 
struction which one of the parties has given to these instru- 
ments. 

I have the honor to transmit, herewith, a copy of the Mes- 
sage of the President of the United States to Congress, in 
December last, and of the annual documents which accom- 
panied it. Among the latter will be found the correspondence 
between the British Secretaries of State and Mr. Stevenson 
upon the subject herein referred to. From these you will learn 
the respective views of the American and British governments. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 181 

It is proper for me to add that this communication has been 
made without any instructions from the United States. I have 
considered this case as one in which an American representa- 
tive to a foreign power should act without awaiting the orders 
of his government. I have presumed, in the views I have sub- 
mitted to you, that I express the feelings of the American gov- 
ernment and people. If in this I have deceived myself, the re- 
sponsibility will be mine. As soon as I can receive dispatches 
from the United States in answer to my communications, I shall 
be enabled to declare to you either that my conduct has been 
approved by the President, or that my mission is terminated. 
I avail myself, &c. Lewis Cass. 

His Excellency M. Guizot, Minister of Foreign Affairs. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Cass. 

Department of State, Washington, April 5, 1842. 

Sir, — By the arrival of the steam-packet at Boston, on the 
27th day of last month, I had the honor to receive your several 
dispatches down to the 2Gth of February. That vessel had 
been so long delayed on the passage to America that, after the 
receipt here of the communications brought by her, there was 
not time to prepare answers in season to reach Boston before 
the time fixed for her departure on her return. The most I 
was able to do was to write a short note to Mr. Everett, to 
signify that the mail from London had come safe to hand. 

The President has been closely attentive to recent occur- 
rences in Europe connected with the treaty of the five powers, 
of which we received a copy soon after its signature in Decem- 
ber. He has witnessed with especial interest the sentiments 
to which that treaty appears to have given rise in France, as 
manifested by the debates in the Chambers and the publication 
of the Parisian press ; and he is now officially informed of the 
eourse which you felt it to be your duty to take, by the receipt 
of a copy of the letter addressed by you to M. Guizot on the 
13th of February. 

When the President entered upon the duties of his present 
office in April of last year, a correspondence, as you know, 
had been long pending, and was still pending, in London, be- 
tween the minister of the United States and her Britannic maj- 
esty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, respecting cer- 
tain seizures and detentions of American vessels on the coast 
of Africa by armed British cruisers, and, generally, respecting 
the visitation and search of American vessels by such cruisers 
in those seas. A general approbation of Mr. Stevenson's note 
to the British minister in regard to this subject was soon after 
communicated to that gentleman, by the President's order, from 
this department. The state of things in England in the early 



182 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

part of last summer did not appear to favor a very active con- 
tinuance or prosecution of this correspondence ; and, as Mr. 
Stevenson had already received permission to return home, no 
new instructions were addressed to him. 

Circumstances occurred, as you are aware, which delayed 
Mr. Everett's arrival at the post assigned to him as minister to 
London ; and, in the mean time, in the latter part of August 
the correspondence between Lord Palmerston and Mr. Steven- 
son was, somewhat unexpectedly, resumed afresh, not only on 
the subject of the African seizures, but on other subjects. 

Mr. Everett arrived in London only in the latter part of 
November ; and, in fact, was not presented to the queen until 
the 16th day of December. While we were waiting to hear 
of his appearance at his post, the session of Congress was fast 
approaching ; and, under these circumstances, the President 
felt it to be his duty to announce, publicly and solemnly, the prin- 
ciples by which the government would be conducted in regard 
to the visitation and search of ships at sea. As one of the 
most considerable, commercial, and maritime states of the 
world, as interested in whatever may in any degree endanger 
or threaten the common independence of nations upon the seas, 
it was fit that this government should avow the sentiments 
which it has heretofore always maintained, and from which it 
can not under any circumstances depart. You are quite too 
well acquainted with the language of the message, on which 
your letter is bottomed, to need its recital here. It expresses 
what we consider the true American doctrine, and that which 
will, therefore, govern us in all future negotiations on the subject. 

While instructions for Mr. Everett were in the course of 
preparation, signifying to him in what manner it might be 
practicable to preserve the peace of the country consistently 
with the principles of the message, and yet so as to enable the 
government to fulfill all its duties, and meet its own wishes and 
the wishes of the people of the United States, in regard to the 
suppression of the African slave trade, it was announced that 
the English government had appointed Lord Ashburton as spe- 
cial minister to this country, fully authorized to treat of and 
definitely settle all matters in difference between the two coun- 
tries. Of course, no instructions were forwarded to Mr. Ev- 
erett respecting any of those matters. You perceive, then, that 
up to the present moment we rest upon the sentiments of the 
message : beyond the fair scope and purport of that document 
we are not committed on the one hand nor on the other. We 
reserve to ourselves the undiminished right to receive or to offer 
propositions on the delicate subjects embraced in the treaty of 
the five powers, to negotiate thereupon as we may be advised, 
never departing from our principles, but desirous, while we 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 183 

carefully maintain all our rights to the fullest extent, of fulfilling 
our duties also as one of the maritime states of the world. 

The President considers your letter to M. Guizot to have 
been founded, as it purports, upon the message delivered by 
him at the opening of the present session of Congress ; as in- 
tending to give assurance to the French government that the 
principles of that message would be adhered to, and that the 
government of the United States would regret to see other 
nations, especially France, an old ally of the United States 
and a distinguished champion of the liberty of the seas, agree 
to any arrangement between other states which might, in its 
influences, produce effects unfavorable to this country, and to 
which arrangement, therefore, this country itself might not be 
able to accede. 

The President directs me to say that he approves your letter, 
and warmly commends the motives which animated you in 
presenting it. The whole subject is now before us here, or will 
be shortly, as Lord Ashburton arrived last evening ; and, with- 
out intending to intimate at present what modes of settling this 
point of difference with England will be proposed, you may 
receive two propositions as certain : 

1st. That, in the absence of treaty stipulations, the United 
States will maintain the immunity of merchant vessels on the 
seas, to the fullest extent which the law of nations authorizes. 

2d. That if the government of the United States, animated 
by a sincere desire to put an end to the African slave trade, 
shall be induced to enter into treaty stipulations for that pur- 
pose with any foreign power, those stipulations will be such as 
shall be strictly limited to their true and single object, such as 
shall not be embarrassing to innocent commerce, and such, espe- 
cially, as shall neither imply any inequality, nor can tend in any 
way to establish such inequality, in their practical operations. 

You are requested to communicate these sentiments to M. 
Guizot, at the same time that you signify to him the President's 
approbation of your letter; and are requested to add an ex- 
pression of the sincere pleasure which it gives the President to 
see the constant sensibility of the French government to the 
maintenance of the great principles of national equality upon 
the ocean. Truly sympathizing with that government in ab- 
horrence of the African slave trade, he appreciates the high 
motives and the comprehensive views of the true, permanent 
interest of mankind, which induces it to act with great caution, 
in giving its sanction to a measure susceptible of interpreta- 
tions, or of modes of execution, which might be in opposition 
to the independence of nations and the freedom of the seas. 

I am, &c, Daniel Webster. 

Lewis Cass, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 



184 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 



Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 

Legation of the United States, Paris, April 30, 1842. 

Sir, — The quintuple treaty, purporting to be for the suppres- 
sion of the slave trade, has not been ratified by France, and the 
manifestations of public opinion against it are so numerous and 
decisive that it seems to be too clearly the part of true wisdom 
to yield to them, to render it probable that that measure will 
ever be adopted. 

M. Guizot has not answered my letter of the 13th of February, 
and I have no expectation he will do so till the course of our 
government upon the subject is known here. I have yet re- 
ceived nothing from you upon the subject, but I am expect- 
ing every day your instructions. If the President should disap- 
prove the step I have taken, I could no longer remain here with 
honor to myself or with advantage to our country. 

I am, &c, Lewis Cass. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 

Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 

Legation of the United States, Paris, May 17, 1842. 

Sir, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
dispatch of the 5th of April, and I am happy to find that the 
course which I considered it necessary to take in relation to 
the ratification, by France, of the quintuple treaty for the sup- 
pression of the slave trade, has met the approbation of the 
President. 

Immediately on the receipt of your letter, I sought an inter- 
view with M. Guizot, and, after some conversation with him, I 
placed the letter in his hands. I thought this mode of proce- 
dure far better than to trust myself to make a verbal statement, 
to be afterward put in the form of an official communication 
to him. As you instructed me to make known the sentiments 
of the President upon the whole matter, 1 was sure I could not 
perform this task as well as I found it performed for me ; and 
this view was not checked by any considerations arising out 
of the nature of the dispatch. There was nothing in it which 
might not be seen by all the world. 

M. Guizot was touched by the frankness of the proceeding, 
and testified his gratification after the perusal of the letter. He 
then asked for a copy of it, which I did not hesitate to promise 
him ; and since then I have sent it ; and have thus, in my 
opinion, in the best mode in my power, carried into effect your 
instructions. 

M. Guizot said nothing on the subject of an answer. If 
the treaty is not ratified, as I have now the confident expecta- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 185 

tion that it will not be, it is possible he may consider that the 
occasion for an answer has passed by. 

I am, &c, Lewis Cass. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 

Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 

Legation of the United States, Paris, May 26, 1842. 

Sir, — Since my dispatch of the 17th instant, the question of 
the ratification of the quintuple treaty has been discussed in 
the Chamber of Peers and in the Chamber of Deputies, and the 
sentiments expressed were unanimously against the measure. 
It is now well understood that the subject is at rest in France, 
and that no ministry will venture to recommend ratification. 
Efforts will no doubt now be made, and I think eventually with 
success, for the abrogation of the treaties of 1831 and 1833. 

The question of the budget is a subject which, by the usage 
of the French Chambers, allows great latitude of discussion. 
Connected with this matter, the commercial relations between 
France and the United States have just been warmly debated. 
I send you the Moniteur, which contains an account of the pro- 
ceedings. It is well worth your examination, and I think ought 
to be translated and published for the information of the country. 
It is lamentable to find such erroneous notions prevailing in 
such a high place respecting the true character of the trade 
between France and the United States. You will see that the 
speakers complain of two grievances : first, of the navigation ; 
and, second, of the duties proposed to be levied on ibreign 
productions imported into the United States. As to the former, 
it is, as you know, upon a footing of perfect equality : and as 
to the latter, if it were, as it is not, a just subject of interference 
for a foreign government, France is one of the last countries 
which has any just right to complain. Her prohibitive system, 
commenced so long ago as Colbert, has been continued, with 
little relaxation, to this day. You can not fail to be struck 
by the views advanced by most of the speakers, and the gravity 
With which they urge reprisals against the United States. But 
I assure you that these sentiments are general in France ; and 
such are the exclusive views taken of these subjects by the 
press, that it is hopeless to expect to change public opinion. 
We have nothing to do but to pursue our own measures firmly, 
leaving to other governments to meet them as they think proper. 

As soon as I read the debate in the Moniteur, I called upon 
M. Guizot to converse with him upon the subject. I found 
him very reasonable, though not fully acquainted with the de- 
tails of the matter. He says, however, that he is looking into 
it, and that nothing will be hastily done. It is my decided 
opinion that there is no efficient remedy for the present state 



166 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

of things, but by a commercial treaty which shall regulate our 
intercourse with France. I recommend that measures with 
that view be taken without delay ; and I think the negotiations 
can be better carried on at Washington than here. If full 
powers and general instructions are given to the French min- 
ister there, you may calculate with a reasonable probability 
upon a successful termination of your efforts. He would un- 
derstand the true state of things better than they are or can be 
understood here. The government has too many important 
subjects on hand, to be able to devote the proper time for the 
acquisition of all the necessary facts which belong to this 
subject. I am, &c, Lewis Cass. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 

Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 

Legation of the United States, Paris, May 31, 1842. 

Sir, — I have the honor to transmit herewith the copy of a 
letter which I have received from the Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, in answer to my letter to him of the 13th of February, 
concerning the quintuple treaty. 

I have merely said, in acknowledging the receipt of this letter, 
that I should transmit it to my government for its information. 
I am, &c, Lewis Cass. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 

[iNCLOSURE. TRANSLATION.] 

Paris, May 26, 1842. 

General, — I received in due time the letter with which you 
honored me on the 13th of February, respecting the treaty 
signed on the 26th of December, between the plenipotentiaries 
of France, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, with the 
object of attaining a more efficient repression of the negro 
slave trade. You therein expressed your desire that the king's 
government should not ratify this treaty ; and you at the same 
time stated that you were about to inform your government of 
a measure which you had thought proper to take, without 
authorization, upon your own responsibility ; and that, as soon 
as you should have received the approval or the disavowel of 
your government, you would communicate it to me. 

I have just received with your letter of the 3d of this month, 
a copy of that which Mr. Webster has written to you, an- 
nouncing the approval by the President of your dispatch of 
the 13th of February ; and as that dispatch has thus acquired an 
official character, which it did not before possess, I conceive 
that I should no longer defer my answer, which would have 
been hitherto premature. 

You expressed to me, sir, your apprehension that the treaty 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 187 

of December 20 might constitute, on the part of the contract- 
ing parties, an engagement to create a new principle of inter- 
national law, whereby the vessels even of those powers which 
have not participated in the arrangement should be subjected 
to the right of search, as established in its stipulations. As 
the act in question has not been ratified by the king's govern- 
ment, and consequently does not exist, so far as regards France, 
at this moment, I might abstain from entering into any expla- 
nations on the subject. But the amicable relations subsisting 
between France and the United States make it my duty to 
come forward and prevent all misunderstanding, by frank and 
complete explanations ; moreover, we have always been actu- 
ated in this matter by intentions too correct and honest (droites 
et loyales) for us not to embrace with eagerness an opportu- 
nity to exhibit them to the world. 

It is not my part to examine the value of the deductions, with 
regard to the private views of the cabinet of London, which you 
draw from certain passages of the dispatches written by Lord 
Palmerston and Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Stevenson, but I shall not 
hesitate to say what was the idea of the king's government upon 
the serious question which you raise. The treaty of December 
20, 1841, whatever hereafter might be its destiny, was founded 
upon no other principles than the conventions of 1831 and 1833. 
The stipulations of these conventions only engaged France and 
England ; the treaty of December 20 extends them to Austria, 
Prussia, and Russia, with some changes more or less important, 
but not altering their nature. In order that the extraordinary 
intention of imposing upon other states the obligation to sub- 
mit to them should be deduced, this intention, which is in no- 
wise indicated in the act of December 20, might be the result 
of the anterior conventions. Never have we, never could we 
have understood them in such a sense. 

I have the less hesitation in here giving the formal, and, in my 
opinion, entirely superfluous assurance, that the king's govern- 
ment, on its part, places the fullest confidence in the firm reso- 
lution so often proclaimed by the Federal government, to aid, 
by its most sincere endeavors, in the definitive abolition of the 
trade. The dispatch of Mr. Webster, which you do me the 
honor to communicate to me, is of such a nature as to increase 
this confidence. It seems to show, in fact, that the cabinet of 
Washington foresees the probability of concluding, with the 
states which have adhered to the right of reciprocal search for 
the suppression of the slave trade, arrangements proper to at- 
tain the end which they propose. 

We should attach the more value to this concurrence of 
views from the circumstance that, while it would hasten the en- 
tire destruction of the slave trade, it would have the effect, by 



188 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

placing all governments in the same situation as regards the 
measures adopted for the suppression, to give to the maritime 
laws, and the commercial activity of all nations, guarantees of 
security which it would be difficult to obtain, amid the compli- 
cations and causes of collision which would necessarily result 
from opposition, or diversity of the systems. However it may 
be, nevertheless, should this hope not be realized— should the 
United States persist in their isolation— we have the conviction 
that they will regard it as a sacred duty to prevent that isola- 
tion from affording to the prosecutors of an infamous specula- 
tion too many chances of impunity. 

Accept, general, the assurance, &c, Guizot. 

General Cass, Envoy Extraordinary, &c. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Cass. 

Department of State, Washington, August 29, 1842. 

Sir, — You will see by the inclosed the result of the nego- 
tiations lately had in this city between this department and 
Lord Ashburton. The treaty has been ratified by the Presi- 
dent and Senate. 

In communicating to you this treaty, I am directed by the 
President to draw your particular attention to those articles 
■which relate to the suppression of the African slave trade. 

After full and anxious consideration of this very delicate 
subject, the government of the United has come to the conclu- 
sion which you will see expressed in the President's Message 
to the Senate accompanying the treaty. 

Without intending or desiring to influence the policy of other 
governments on this important subject, this government has 
reflected on what was due to its own character and position, as 
the leading maritime power on the American continent, left 
free to make choice such of means for the fulfillment of its du- 
ties as it should deem best suited to its dignity. The result of 
its reflections has been, that it does not concur in measures 
which, for whatever benevolent purpose they may be adopted, 
or with whatever care and moderation they may be exercised, 
have yet a tendency to place the police of the seas in the hands 
of a single power. It chooses rather to follow its own laws 
with its own sanction, and to carry them into execution by its 
own authority. Disposed to act in the spirit of the most cor- 
dial concurrence with other nations for the suppression of the 
African slave trade, that great reproach of our times, it deems 
it to be right, nevertheless, that this action, though concurrent, 
should be independent ; and it believes that, from this independ- 
ence, it will derive a greater degree of efficiency. 

You will perceive, however, that, in the opinion of this gov- 
ernment, cruising against slave dealers on the coast of Africa 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 189 

is not all which is necessary to be done, in order to put an end 
to the traffic. There are markets for slaves, or the unhappy 
natives of Africa would not be seized, chained, and carried over 
the ocean into slavery. These markets ought to be shut. 
And, in the treaty now communicated to you, the high con- 
tracting parties have stipulated " that they will unite, in all be- 
coming representations and remonstrances, with any and all 
powers within whose dominions such markets are allowed to 
exist ; and that they will urge upon all such powers the pro- 
priety and duty of closing such markets effectually at once and 
forever." 

You are furnished, then, with the American policy in regard 
to this interesting subject. First, independent but cordially 
concurrent efforts of maritime states to suppress, as far as pos- 
sible, the trade on the coast, by means of competent and well 
appointed squadrons, to watch the shores and scour the neigh- 
boring seas. Secondly, concurrent, becoming remonstrance 
with all governments who tolerate within their territories 
markets for the purchase of African negroes. There is much 
reason to believe that if other states, professing equal hostility 
to this nefarious traffic, would give their own powerful concur- 
rence and co-operation to these remonstrances, the general ef- 
fect would be satisfactory, and that the cupidity and crimes of 
individuals would at length cease to find both their temptation 
and their reward in the bosom of Christian states, and in the 
permission of Christian governments. 

It will still remain for each government to revise, execute, 
and make more effectual its own municipal laws against its 
subjects or citizens who shall be concerned in, or in any way 
give aid or countenance to others concerned in this traffic. 

You are at liberty to make the contents of this dispatch 
known to the French government. 

I have, &c, Daniel Webster. 

Lewis Cass, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 

Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 

Legation of the United States, Paris, September 17, 1842. 

S IR? — The mail by the steam-packet which left Boston on 
the 1st instant has just arrived, and has brought intelligence of 
the ratification of the treaties recently concluded with Great 
Britain. All apprehensions, therefore, of any immediate diffi- 
culties with that country are at an end, and I do not see that 
any public interest demands my further residence in Europe. 
I can no longer be useful here, and the state of my private af- 
fairs requires my presence at home. Under these circum- 
stances, I beg you to submit to the President my wish for per- 
mission to retire from this mission, and to return to the United 



190 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

States without delay. In the hope that there will be no objec- 
tion to this measure, I shall proceed to make my arrangements 
to leave here about the 13th of November, so as to embark in 
the steamer of the 19th of November. I can not delay my de- 
parture any longer, as I am anxious to finish my voyage before 
the winter weather. 

I have, therefore, to pray you to favor me with an answer 
by the return steam-packet, inclosing my letters of recall, and 
authorizing me to transfer the legation to the secretary, Mr. 
Ledyard, as charge d'affaires, till a minister can be sent out. 
He is every way competent to discharge the duties. 

I am, &c, Lewis Cass. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 

Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 

Legation of the United States, Paris, October 3, 1842. 

Sir, — The last packet brought me your letter of August 29, 
announcing the conclusion of a treaty with Great Britain, and 
accompanied by a copy of it, and of the correspondence be- 
tween the ministers charged with the negotiations, and direct- 
ing me to make known to M. Guizot the sentiments of the 
American government upon that part of the treaty which pro- 
vides for the co-operation of the United States in the efforts 
making to suppress the African slave trade. I thought I should 
best fulfill your intentions by communicating a copy, in extenso, 
of your letter. This I accordingly did yesterday. I trust I 
shall be able, before my departure, to transmit to you the ac- 
knowledgment of its receipt by M. Guizot. 

In executing this duty, I felt too well what was due to my 
government and country to intimate any regret to a foreign 
power that some declaration had not preceded the treaty, or 
some stipulation accompanied it, by which the extraordinary 
pretension of Great Britain to search our ships at all times and 
in all places, first put forth to the world by Lord Palmerston 
on the 27th of August, 1841, and on the 13th of October follow- 
ing again peremptorily claimed as a right by Lord Aberdeen, 
would have been abrogated, as equally incompatible with the 
laws of nations and with the independence of the United States. 
I confined myself, therefore, to a simple communication of your 
letter. 

But this reserve ceases when I address my own government ; 
and, connected as I feel my official conduct and reputation with 
this question of the right of search, I am sure I shall find an ex- 
cuse for what might otherwise be considered presumption, if, 
as one of the last acts of my official career, I submit to you, and 
through you to the President, the peculiar circumstances in 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 191 

which I am placed by the conclusion of this treaty, and by the 
communication of your letter to M. Guizot. 

Before proceeding further, however, permit me to remark, 
that no one rejoices more sincerely than I do at the termination 
of our difficulties with Great Britain, so far as they are termin- 
ated. That country and ours have so many moral and mate- 
rial interests involved in their intercourse, that their respective 
governments and inhabitants may well feel more than ordinary 
solicitude for the preservation of peace between these two great 
nations. Our past history, however, will be unprofitable if it 
do not teach us that unjust pretensions, affecting our rights and 
honor, are best met by being promptly repelled when first urged, 
and by being received in a spirit of resistance worthy the char- 
acter of our people and of the great trust confided to us as the 
depositaries of the freest system of government which the world 
has yet witnessed. 

I had the honor, in my letter of the 17th ultimo, to solicit 
permission to return to the United States. That letter was 
written the day a copy of the treaty reached Paris ; and the 
remark which I then made to you, that " I could no longer be 
useful here," has been confirmed by subsequent reflection, and 
by the receipt of your letter and of the correspondence accom- 
panying it. I feel that I could no longer remain here honora- 
bly for myself or advantageously for our country. 

In my letter to you of the 15th of February last, transmitting 
a copy of my protest against the ratification of the quintuple 
treaty for the suppression of the African slave trade, I took the 
liberty of suggesting the propriety of demanding from Lord 
Ashburton, previously to entering into any negotiation, a dis- 
tinct renunciation of this claim to search our vessels. I thought 
then, as I do now, that this course was demanded by a just 
self-respect, and would be supported by that tribunal of public 
opinion which sustains our government when right, and cor- 
rects it when wrong. The pretension itself was one of the 
most flagrant outrages which could be aimed at an independ- 
ent nation ; and the mode of its enunciation was as coolly con- 
temptuous as diplomatic ingenuity could suggest. We were 
told, that to the doctrine that American vessels were free from 
the search of foreign cruisers in time of peace, " the British 
government never could or would subscribe ;" and we were 
told, too, there was reason to expect that the United States 
would themselves become converts to the same opinion ; and 
this expectation was founded on the hope that "they would 
cease to confound two things which are in their nature entirely 
different, and would look to things, and not to words." And 
the very concluding paragraph of the British correspondence 
tells us, in effect, that we may take whatever course we please, 



192 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

but that England will adhere to this pretension to board our 
vessels when and where her cruisers may find them. A por- 
tion of this paragraph is equally significant and unceremonious. 
" It is for the American government," says Lord Aberdeen, 
" alone to determine what may be due to a just regard for their 
national dignity and national independence." I doubt if, in 
the wide range of modern diplomacy, a more obnoxious claim 
has been urged in a more obnoxious manner. 

This claim, thus asserted and supported, was promptly met 
and firmly repelled by the President in his message at the com- 
mencement of the last session of Congress ; and in your letter 
to me, approving the course I had adopted in relation to the 
question of the ratification by France of the quintuple treaty, 
you consider the principles of that message as the established 
policy of the government. Under these circumstances of the 
assertion and denial of this new claim of maritime police, the 
eyes of Europe were upon these two great naval powers, one 
of which had advanced a pretension, and avowed her determ- 
ination to enforce it, which might at any moment bring them 
into collision. So far our national dignity was uncompromited. 
But England then urged the United States to enter into a 
conventional arrangement, by which we might be pledged to 
concur with her in measures for the suppression of the slave 
trade. Till then we had executed our own laws in our own 
way. But, yielding to this application, and departing from 
our former principle of avoiding European combinations upon 
subjects not American, we stipulated, in a solemn treaty, that 
we would carry into effect our own laws, and fixed tbe mini- 
mum force we would employ for that purpose. Certainly, a 
laudable desire to terminate this horrible man-stealing and 
man-selling may well justify us in going farther, in changing 
one of the fundamental principles of our policy, in order to ef- 
fect this object, than we would go to effect any other. It is so 
much more a question of feeling than of reasoning, that we can 
hardly be wrong in yielding to that impulse which leads us to 
desire to unite our efforts with those of other nations for the 
protection of the most sacred human rights. But, while mak- 
ing so important a concession to the renewed application of 
England, it seems to me we might well have said to her, Be- 
fore we treat upon this matter, there is a preliminary question 
connected with it which must be settled. We ivill do no act which 
may, by any possibility, appear to be a recognition of your clairn 
to search our vessels. That claim has arisen out of this very 
subject, or, at any rate, this subject has been the pretext for its 
assertion; and if we now negotiate upon it, and our concur- 
rence is yielded, you must relinquish, as solemnly as you have 
announced, this most offensive pretension. If this is not done, 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 193 

by now making a conventional arrangement with you, and leav- 
ing you free to take your own course, we shall, in effect, abandon 
the groiind we have assumed, and with it our rights and honor. 

In carefully looking at the seventh and eighth articles of the 
treaty providing for our co-operation in the measures for the 
suppression of this traffic, I do not see that they change in the 
slightest degree the pre-existing right claimed by Great Brit- 
ain to arrest and search our vessels. That claim, as advanced 
both by Lord Palmerston and Lord Aberdeen, rested on the 
assumption that the treaties between England and other Eu- 
ropean powers upon this subject could not be executed with- 
out its exercise, and that the happy concurrence of these poivers 
not only justified this exercise, but rendered it indispensable. By 
the recent treaty we are to keep a squadron upon the coast of 
Africa. We have kept one there for years — during the whole 
term, indeed, of these efforts to put a stop to this most iniqui- 
tous commerce. The effect of the treaty is, therefore, to ren- 
der it obligatory upon us, by a convention, to do what we have 
long done voluntarily — to place our municipal laws, in some 
measure, beyond the reach of Congress, and to increase the 
strength of the squadron employed on this duty. But if a Brit- 
ish cruiser met a vessel bearing the American flag, where there 
is no American ship of war to examine her, it is obvious that it 
is quite as indispensable and justifiable that the cruiser should 
search this vessel to ascertain her nationality since the conclu- 
sion of the treaty as it was before. The mutual rights of the 
parties are in this respect wholly untouched ; their pretensions 
exist in full force; and what they could do prior to this ar- 
rangement, they may do now ; for, though they have respective- 
ly sanctioned the employment of a force to give effect " to the 
laws, rights, and obligations of the two countries," yet they 
have not prohibited the use of any other measure which ei- 
ther party may be disposed to adopt. 

It is unnecessary to push these considerations further ; and, 
in carrying them thus far, I have found the task an unpleasant 
one. Nothing but justice to myself could have induced me to 
do it. I could not clearly explain my position here without this 
recapitulation. My protest of the 13th of February distinctly 
asserted that the United States would resist the pretension of 
England to search our vessels. I avowed, at the same time, 
that this was but my personal declaration, liable to be confirm- 
ed or disavowed by my government. I now find a treaty has 
been concluded between Great Britain and the United States, 
which provides for the co-operation of the latter in efforts to 
abolish the slave trade, but which contains no renunciation by 
the former of the extraordinary pretension, resulting, as she 
said, from the exigencies of these verv efforts ; and which pre- 

N 



194 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

tension I felt it my duty to denounce to the French govern- 
ment. In all this I presume to offer no further judgment than 
as I am personally affected by the course of the proceedings ; 
and I feel they have placed me in a false position, whence I 
can escape but by returning home with the least possible de- 
lay. I trust, therefore, that the President will have felt no 
hesitation in granting me the permission which I asked for. 
I am, &c, Lewis Cass. 

Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Cass. 

Department of State, Washington, October 11, 1842. 

Sm, — I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch of 
the 17th of September last, requesting permission to return 
home. 

I have submitted the dispatch to the President, and am by 
him directed to say that, although he much regrets that your 
own wishes should, at this time, terminate your mission to the 
court of France, where for a long period you have rendered 
your country distinguished service, in all instances to its honor 
and to the satisfaction of the government, and where you oc- 
cupy so favorable a position, from the more than ordinary good, 
intelligence which is understood to subsist between you, per- 
sonally, and the members of the French government, and from 
the esteem entertained for you by its illustrious head ; yet he 
can not refuse your request to return once more to your home 
and your country, so that you can pay that attention to your 
personal and private affairs which your long absence and con- 
stant employment in the service of your government may now 
render most necessary. 

I have, sir, to tender you, on behalf of the President, his most 
cordial good wishes, and am, &c, 

Fletcher Webster, Acting Secretary of State. 

Lewis Cass, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 

Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 

Legation of the United States, Paris, October 29, 1842. 

Sir, — 1 have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of the 
letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 14th instant, ac- 
knowledging the reception of my letter to him of the 2d instant, 
inclosing a copy of your communication of August 29th, re- 
specting the conclusion of the recent treaty with Great Britain. 
I am, &c, Lewis Cass. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of Slate, Washington. 






DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 195 

[iNCLOSURE. TRANSLATION.] 

Paris, October 14, 18-12. 

General, — I have received, with the letter which you did 
me the honor to address to me on the 2d instant, a copy of the 
dispatch wherein Mr. Webster, the Secretary of State, while 
communicating to you the result of his negotiations with Lord 
Ashburton, her Britannic majesty's plenipotentiary, informs 
you of the views of the Federal government with regard to 
the repression of the slave trade. 

I thank you, sir, for this communication, and I embrace with 
satisfaction this opportunity to renew to you, &c, 

Guizot. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Cass. 

Department of State, Washington, November 14, 1842. 

Sir, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
dispatch of the 3d of October, brought by the "Great Western," 
which arrived at New York on the 6th instant. 

It is probable you will have embarked for the United States 
before my communication can now reach you ; but as it is 
thought proper that your letter should be answered, and as 
circumstances may possibly have occurred to delay your de- 
parture, this will be transmitted to Paris in the ordinary way. 

Your letter has caused the President considerable concern. 
Entertaining a lively sense of the respectable and useful man- 
ner in which you have discharged, for several years, the du- 
ties of an important foreign mission, it occasions him real re- 
gret and pain that your last official communication should be 
of such a character as that he can not give to it his entire and 
cordial approbation. 

It appears to be intended as a sort of protest, a remonstrance, 
in the form of an official dispatch, against a transaction of the 
government to which you were not a party, in which you had 
no agency whatever, and for the results of which you were no 
way answerable. This would seem an unusual and extraor- 
dinary proceeding. In common with every other citizen of 
the republic, you have an unquestionable right to form opin- 
ions upon public transactions, and the conduct of public men ; 
but it will hardly be thought to be among either the duties or 
the privileges of a minister abroad to make formal remonstran- 
ces and protests against proceedings of the various branches 
of the government at home, upon subjects in relation to which 
he himself has not been charged with any duty or partaken 
any responsibility. 

The negotiation and conclusion of the Treaty of Washing- 
ton were in the hands of the President and Senate. They had 
acted upon this important subject according to their convic- 



196 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

tions of duty and of the public interest, and had ratified the 
treaty. It was a thing done ; and although your opinion might 
be at variance with that of the President and Senate, it is not 
perceived that you had any cause of complaint, remonstrance, 
or protest, more than any other citizen who might entertain 
the same opinion. 

In your letter of the 17th of September, requesting your re- 
call, you observe, " The mail by the steam-packet which left 
Boston the 1st instant has just arrived, and has brought intel- 
ligence of the ratification of the treaties recently concluded 
with Great Britain. All apprehensions, therefore, of any im- 
mediate difficulties with that country are at an end, and I do 
not see that any public interest demands my further residence 
in Europe. I can no longer be useful here, and the state of 
my private affairs requires my presence at home. Under these 
circumstances, I beg you to submit to the President my wish 
for permission to retire from this mission, and to return to the 
United States without delay." 

As you appeared at that time not to be acquainted with the 
provisions of the treaty, it was inferred that your desire to re- 
turn home proceeded from the conviction that, inasmuch as all 
apprehensions of immediate differences with Great Britain were 
at an end, you would no longer be useful at Paris. Placing 
this interpretation on your letter, and believing, as you your- 
self allege, that your long absence abroad rendered it desira- 
ble for you to give some attention to your private affairs in this 
country, the President lost no time in yielding to your request, 
and, in doing so, signified to you the sentiments of approbation 
which he entertained for your conduct abroad. You may then 
well imagine the great astonishment which the declaration 
contained in your dispatch of the 3d of October, that you could 
no longer remain in France honorably to yourself or advanta- 
geously to the country, and that the proceedings of this gov- 
ernment had placed you in a false position, from which you 
could escape only by returning home, created in his mind. 

The President perceives not the slightest foundation for these 
opinions. He can not see how your usefulness as minister to 
France should be terminated by the settlement of difficulties 
and disputes between the United States and Great Britain. 
You have been charged with no duties connected with the set- 
tlement of these questions, or in any way relating to them, be- 
yond the communication to the French government of the Pres- 
ident's approbation of your letter of the 13th of February, 
written without previous instructions from this department. 
This government is not informed of any other act or proceed- 
ing of yours connected with any part of the subject, nor does 
it know that your official conduct and character have become 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 197 

in any other way connected with the question of the right of 
search ; and that letter having been approved, and the French 
government having been so informed, the President is altogeth- 
er at a loss to understand how you can regard yourself as 
placed in a false position. If the character or conduct of any 
one was to be affected, it could only be the character and con- 
duct of the President himself. The government has done noth- 
ing, most assuredly, to place you in a false position. Repre- 
senting your country at a foreign court, you saw a transaction 
about to take place between the government to which you 
were accredited and another power, which you thought might 
have a prejudicial effect on the interest of your own country. 
Thinking, as it is to be presumed, that the case was too press- 
ing to wait for instructions, you presented a protest against 
that transaction, and your government approved your proceed- 
ing. This is your only official connection with the whole sub- 
ject. If after this the President had sanctioned the negotiation 
of a treaty, and the Senate had ratified it, containing provi- 
sions in the highest degree objectionable, however the govern- 
ment might be discredited, your exemption from all blame and 
censure would have been complete. Having delivered your 
letter of the 13th of February to the French government, and 
having received the President's approbation of that proceeding, 
it is most manifest that you could be in no degree responsible 
for what should be done afterward, and done by others. The 
President, therefore, can not conceive what particular or per- 
sonal interest of yours was affected by the subsequent negoti- 
ation here, or how the treaty, the result of that negotiation, 
should put an end to your usefulness as a public minister at the 
court of France, or any way affect your official character or 
conduct. 

It is impossible not to see that such a proceeding as you have 
seen fit to adopt might produce much inconvenience, and even 
serious prejudice, to the public interests. Your opinion is 
against the treaty, a treaty concluded and formally ratified ; 
and, to support that opinion, while yet in the service of the 
government, you put a construction on its provisions such as 
your own government does not put upon them, such as you 
must be aware the enlightened public of Europe does not put 
upon them, and such as England herself has not put upon them 
as yet, so far as we know. 

It may become necessary hereafter to publish your letter, in 
connection with other correspondence of the mission ; and al- 
though it is not to be presumed that you looked to such publi- 
cation, because such a presumption would impute to you a 
claim to put forth your private opinions upon the conduct of 
the President and Senate, in a transaction finished and con- 



198 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

eluded, through the imposing form of a public dispatch, yet, if 
published, it can not be foreseen how far England might here- 
after rely on your authority for a construction favorable to her 
own pretensions, and inconsistent with the interest and honor 
of the United States. It is certain that you would most sedu- 
lously desire to avoid any such attitude. You would be slow 
to express opinions, in a solemn and official form, favorable to 
another government, and on the authority of which opinions 
that other government might hereafter found new claims or 
set up new pretensions. It is for this reason, as well as others, 
that the President feels so much regret at your desire of pla- 
cing your construction of the provisions of the treaty, and your 
objections to those provisions, according to your construction, 
upon the records of the government. 

Before examining the several objections suggested by you, 
it may be proper to take notice of what you say upon the course 
of the negotiation. In regard to this, having observed that the 
national dignity of the United States had not been compro- 
mited down to the time of the President's Message to the last 
sesssion of Congress, you proceed to say : " But England then 
urged the United States to enter into a conventional arrange- 
ment, by which we might be pledged to concur with her in 
measures for the suppression of the slave trade. Till then we 
had executed our own laws in our own way. But, yielding to 
this application, and departing from our former principle of 
avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American, 
we stipulated, in a solemn treaty, that we would carry into ef- 
fect our own laws, and fixed the minimum force we would em- 
ploy for that purpose." 

The President can not conceive how you should have been 
led to adventure upon such a statement as this. It is but a tis- 
sue of mistakes. England did not urge the United States to 
enter into this conventional arrangement. The United States 
yielded to no application from England. The proposition for 
abolishing the slave trade, as it stands in the treaty, was an 
American proposition ; it originated with the executive gov- 
ernment of the United States, which cheerfully assumes all its 
responsibility. It stands upon it as its own mode of fulfilling 
its duties and accomplishing its objects. Nor have the United 
States departed, in this treaty, in the slightest degree from their 
former principles of avoiding European combinations upon 
subjects not American, because the abolition of the African 
slave trade is an American subject as emphatically as it is a 
European subject ; and indeed more so, inasmuch as the gov- 
ernment of the United States took the first great steps in de- 
claring that trade unlawful, and in attempting its extinction. 
The abolition of this traffic is an object of the highest interest 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 199 

to the American people and the American government ; and 
you seem strangely to have overlooked altogether the import- 
ant fact, that nearly thirty years ago, by the Treaty of Ghent, 
the United States bound themselves, by solemn compact with 
England, to continue " their efforts to promote its entire abo- 
lition," both parties pledging themselves by that treaty to use 
their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object. 

Again, you speak of an important concession made to the 
renewed application of England. But the treaty, let it be re- 
peated, makes no concession to England whatever. It com- 
plies with no demand, grants no application, conforms to no 
request. All these statements, thus by you made, and which 
are so exceedingly erroneous, seem calculated to hold up the 
idea that in this treaty your government has been acting a 
subordinate or even a complying part. 

The President is not a litt'e startled that you should make 
such totally groundless assumptions of fact, and then leave a 
discreditable inference to be drawn from them. He directs 
me not only to repel this inference as it ought to be repelled, 
but also to bring to your serious consideration and reflection 
the propriety of such an assumed narration of facts as your 
dispatch, in this respect, puts forth. 

Having informed the department that a copy of the letter of 
the 24th of August, addressed by me to you, had been deliv- 
ered to M. Guizot, you proceed to say : " In executing this 
duty, I felt too well what was due to my government and coun- 
try to intimate my regret to a foreign power that some declara- 
tion had not preceded the treaty, or some stipulation accom- 
panied it, by which the extraordinary pretension of Great Brit- 
ain to search our ships at all times and in all places, first put 
forth to the world by Lord Palmerston on the 27th of August, 
1841, and on the 13th of October following again peremptori- 
ly claimed as a right by Lord Aberdeen, would have been ab- 
rogated, as equally incompatible w r ith the laws of nations and 
with the independence of the United States. I confined my- 
self, therefore, to a simple communication of your letter." It 
may be true that the British pretension leads necessarily to 
consequences as broad and general as your statement. But it 
is no more than fair to state that pretension in the words oi 
the British government itself, and then it becomes matter of 
consideration and argument how broad and extensive it really 
is. The last statement of this pretension, or claim, by the Brit- 
ish government is contained in Lord Aberdeen's note to Mr. 
Stevenson of the 13th of October, 1841. It is in these words : 
"The undersigned readily admits that to visit and^ search 
American vessels in time of peace, when that right of search 
is not granted by treaty, would be an infraction of public law, 



200 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

and a violation of national dignity and independence. But no 
such right is asserted. We sincerely desire to respect the ves- 
sels of the United States, but we may reasonably expect to 
know what it really is that we respect. Doubtless the flag is 
prima facie evidence of the nationality of the vessel ; and, if 
this evidence were in its nature conclusive and irrefragable, it 
ought to preclude all further inquiry. But it is sufficiently no- 
torious that the flags of all nations are liable to be assumed by 
those who have no right or title to bear them. Mr. Stevenson 
himself fully admits the extent to which the American flag has 
been employed for the purpose of covering this infamous traf- 
fic. The undersigned joins with Mr. Stevenson in deeply la- 
menting the evil ; and he agrees with him in thinking that the 
United States ought not to be' considered responsible for this 
abuse of their flag. But if all inquiry be resisted, even when 
carried no further than to ascertain the nationality of the ves- 
sel, and impunity be claimed for the most lawless and desperate 
of mankind in the commission of this fraud, the undersigned 
greatly fears that it may be regarded as something like an as- 
sumption of that responsibility which has been deprecated by 
Mr. Stevenson." ****** 

" The undersigned renounces all pretension on the part of 
the British government to visit and search American vessels in 
time of peace. Nor is it as American that such vessels are 
ever visited ; but it has been the invariable practice of the Brit- 
ish navy, and, as the undersigned believes, of all navies in the 
world, to ascertain, by visit, the real nationality of merchant 
vessels met with on the high seas, if there be good reason to 
apprehend their illegal character." * * * * 

" The undersigned admits that, if the British cruiser should 
possess a knowledge of the American character of any vessel, 
his visitation of such vessel would be entirely unjustifiable. He 
further admits that so much respect and honor are due to the 
American flag, that no vessel bearing it ought to be visited by 
a British cruiser, except under the most grave suspicions and 
well-founded doubts of the genuineness of its character. 

" The undersigned, although with pain, must add, that if such 
visit should lead to the proof of the American origin of the 
vessel, and that she was avowedly engaged in the slave trade, 
exhibiting to view the manacles, fetters, and other usual im- 
plements of torture, or had even a number of these unfortunate 
beings on board, no British officer could interfere further. He 
might give information to the cruisers of the United States, 
but it could not be in his own power to arrest or impede the 
prosecution of the voyage and the success of the undertaking. 

" It is obvious, therefore, that the utmost caution is neces- 
sary in the exercise of this right claimed by Great Britain. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 201 

While we have recourse to the necessary, and, indeed, the 
only means for detecting imposture, the practice will be care- 
fully guarded and limited to cases of strong suspicion. The 
undersigned begs to assure Mr. Stevenson that the most pre- 
cise and positive instructions have been issued to her majes- 
ty's officers on this subject." 

Such are the words of the British claim or pretension ; and 
it stood in this form at the delivery of the President's Message 
to Congress in December last : a message in which you are 
pleased to say that the British pretension was promptly met 
and firmly resisted. 

I may now proceed to a more particular examination of the 
objections which you make to the treaty. 

You observe that you think a just self-respect required of 
the government of the United States to demand of Lord Ash- 
burton a distinct renunciation of the British claim to search 
our vessels, previous to entering into any negotiation. The 
government has thought otherwise ; and this appears to be 
your main objection to the treaty, if, indeed, it be not the only 
one which is clearly and distinctly stated. The government 
of the United States supposed that, in this respect, it stood in 
a position in which it had no occasion to demand any thing, or 
ask for any thing, of England. The British pretension, what- 
ever it was, or however extensive, was well known to the 
President at the date of his message to Congress at the open- 
ing of the last session. And I must be allowed to remind you 
how the President treated this subject in that communication. 
" However desirous the United States may be," said he, 
" for the suppression of the slave trade, they can not consent 
to interpolations into the maritime code at the mere will and 
pleasure of other governments. We deny the right of any 
such interpolation to any one, or all the nations of the earth, 
without our consent. We claim to have a voice in all amend- 
ments or alterations of that code ; and when we are given to 
understand, as in this instance, by a foreign government, that 
its treaties with other nations can not be executed without the 
establishment and enforcement of new principles of maritime 
police, to be applied without our consent, we must employ a 
language neither of equivocal import nor susceptible of mis- 
construction. American citizens prosecuting a lawful com- 
merce in the African seas, under the flag of their country, are 
not responsible for the abuse or unlawful use of that flag by 
others ; nor can they rightfully, on account of any such al- 
leged abuses, be interrupted, molested, or detained while on 
the ocean ; and if thus molested and detained while pursuing 
honest voyages in the usual way, and violating no law them- 
selves, they are unquestionably entitled to indemnity." 



202 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

This declaration of the President stands : not a syllable of 
it has been, or will be, retracted. The principles which it an- 
nounces rest on their inherent justice and propriety, on their 
conformity to public law, and, so far as we are concerned, on 
the determination and ability of the country to maintain them. 
To these principles the government is pledged, and that pledge 
it will be at all times ready to redeem. 

But what is your own language on this point? You say 
"this claim (the British claim), thus asserted and supported, 
was promptly met and firmly repelled by the President in his 
message at the commencement of the last session of Congress ; 
and in your letter to me approving the course I had adopted 
in relation to the question of the ratification by France of the 
quintuple treaty, you consider the principles of that message 
as the established" policy of the government." And you add, 
" So far our national dignity was uncompromited." If this 
be so, what is there which has since occurred to compromit 
this dignity ? You shall yourself be judge of this ; because 
you say, in a subsequent part of your letter, that "the mutual 
rights of the parties are in this respect wholly untouched." If, 
then, the British pretension had been promptly met and firmly 
repelled by the President's Message ; if, so far, our national 
dignity had not been compromited ; and if, as you further say, 
our rights remain wholly untouched by any subsequent act or 
proceeding, what ground is there on which to found complaint 
against the treaty '( 

But your sentiments on this point do not concur with the 
opinions of your government. That government is of opinion 
that the sentiments of the message, which you so highly ap- 
prove, are reaffirmed and corroborated by the treaty, and the 
correspondence accompanying it. The very object sought to 
be obtained, in proposing the mode adopted for abolishing the 
slave trade, was to take away all pretense whatever for inter- 
rupting lawful commerce by the visitation of American vessels. 
Allow me to refer you, on this point, to the following passage 
in the message of the President to the Senate, accompanying 
the treaty : 

" In my message at the commencement of the present ses- 
sion of Congress, I endeavored to state the principles which 
this government supports respecting the right of search and 
the immunity of flags. Desirous of maintaining those princi- 
ples fully, at the same time that existing obligations should be 
fulfilled, I have thought it most consistent with the dignity and 
honor of the country that it should execute its own laws and 
perform its own obligations by its own means and its own 
power. The examination or visitation of the merchant vessels 
of one nation by the cruisers of another, for any purposes ex- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 203 

cept those known and acknowledged by the law of nations, 
under whatever restraints or regulations it may take place, 
may lead to dangerous results. It is far better by other 
means to supersede any supposed necessity, or any motive, 
for such examination or visit. Interference with a merchant 
vessel by an armed cruiser is always a delicate proceeding, 
apt to touch the point of national honor, as well as to affect the 
interests of individuals. It has been thought, therefore, expe- 
dient, not only in accordance with the stipulations of the Treaty 
of Ghent, but at the same time as removing all pretext on the 
part of others for violating the immunities of the American flag 
upon the seas, as they exist and are defined by the law of na- 
tions, to enter into the articles now submitted to the Senate. 

" The treaty which I now submit to you proposes no altera- 
tion, mitigation, or modification of the rules of the law of na- 
tions. It provides simply that each of the two governments 
shall maintain on the coast of Africa a sufficient squadron to en- 
force, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obliga- 
tions of the two countries for the suppression of the slave trade." 

In the actual posture of things, the President thought that 
the government of the United States, standing on its own 
rights and its own solemn declarations, would only weaken its 
position by making such a demand as appears to you to have 
been expedient. We maintain the public law of the world as 
we receive it and understand it to be established. We defend 
our own rights and our own honor, meeting all aggression at 
the boundary. Here we may well stop. 

You are pleased to observe, that " under the circumstances 
of the assertion of the British claim, in the correspondence of 
the British secretaries, and of its denial by the President of the 
United States, the eyes of Europe were upon these two great 
naval powers ; one of which had advanced a pretension, and 
avowed her determination to enforce it, which might at any 
moment bring them into collision." 

It is certainly true that the attention of Europe has been 
very much awakened, of late years, to the general subject, and 
quite alive, also, to whatever might take place in regard to it 
between the United States and Great Britain. And it is high- 
ly satisfactory to find that, so far as we can learn, the opinion 
is universal that the government of the United States has fully 
sustained its rights and its dignity by the treaty which has 
been concluded. Europe, we believe, is happy to see that a 
collision, which might have disturbed the peace of the whole 
civilized world, has been avoided in a manner which recon- 
ciles the performance of a high national duty, and the fulfill- 
ment of positive stipulations, to the perfect immunity of flags 
and the equality of nations upon the ocean. I must be per- 



204 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

mitted to add that, from every agent of the government abroad 
who has been heard from on the subject, with the single ex- 
ception of your own letter (an exception most deeply regret- 
ted), as well as from every part of Europe where maritime 
rights have advocates and defenders, we have received noth- 
ing but congratulation. And at this moment, if the general 
sources of information may be trusted, our example has rec- 
ommended itself already to the regard of states the most 
jealous of British ascendency at sea ; and the treaty against 
which you remonstrate may soon come to be esteemed by them 
as a fit model for imitation. 

Toward the close of your dispatch, you are pleased to say : 
" By the recent treaty we are to keep a squadron upon the 
coast of Africa. We have kept one there for years — during 
the whole term, indeed, of these efforts to put a stop to this 
most iniquitous commerce. The effect of the treaty is, there- 
fore, to render it obligatory upon us, by a convention, to do 
what we have long done voluntarily — to place our munici- 
pal laws, in some measure, beyond the reach of Congress." 
Should the effect of the treaty be to place our municipal 
laws, in some measure, beyond the reach of Congress, it is 
sufficient to say that all treaties containing obligations neces- 
sarily do this. All treaties of commerce do it ; and, indeed, 
there is hardly a treaty existing, to which the United States 
are party, which does not, to some extent, or in some way, re- 
strain the legislative power. Treaties could not be made 
without producing this effect. 

But your remark would seem to imply that, in your judgment, 
there is something derogatory to the character and dignity of 
the country in thus stipulating with a foreign power for a con- 
current effort to execute the laws of each. It would be a suf- 
ficient refutation of this objection to say that, if in this ar- 
rangement there be any thing derogatory to the character and 
dignity of one party, it must be equally derogatory, since the 
stipulation is perfectly mutual, to the character and dignity of 
both. But it is derogatory to the character and dignity of 
neither. The objection seems to proceed still upon the implied 
ground that the abolition of the slave trade is more a duty of 
Great Britain, or a more leading object with her, than it is or 
should be with us ; as if, in this great effort of civilized nations 
to do away the most cruel traffic that ever scourged or dis- 
graced the world, we had not as high and honorable, as just 
and merciful a part to act, as any other nation upon the face 
of the earth. Let it be forever remembered, that in this great 
work of humanity and justice the United States took the lead 
themselves. This government declared the slave trade un- 
lawful ; and in this declaration it has been followed by the 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 205 

great powers of Europe. This government declared the slave 
trade to be piracy ; and in this, too, its example has been fol- 
lowed by other states. This government — this young gov- 
ernment — springing up in this new world within half a centu- 
ry, founded on the broadest principles of civil liberty, and sus- 
tained by the moral sense and intelligence of the people, has 
gone in advance of all other nations in summoning the civil- 
ized world to a common effort to put down and destroy a ne- 
farious traffic reproachful to human nature. It has not deemed, 
and it does not deem, that it suffers any derogation from its 
character or its dignity, if, in seeking to fulfill this sacred duty, 
it act, as far as necessary, on fair and equal terms of concert 
with other powers having in view the same praiseworthy ob- 
ject. Such were its sentiments when it entered into the sol- 
emn stipulations of the Treaty of Ghent ; such were its senti- 
ments when it requested England to concur with us in declar- 
ing the slave trade to be piracy ; and such are the sentiments 
which it has manifested on all other proper occasions. 

In conclusion, I have to repeat the expression of the Presi- 
dent's deep regret at the general tone and character of your 
letter, and to assure you of the great happiness it would have 
afforded him if, concurring with the judgment of the President 
and Senate — concurring with what appears to be the general 
sense of the country — concurring in all the manifestations of 
enlightened public opinion in Europe — you had seen nothing 
in the treaty of the 9th of August to which you could not give 
your cordial approbation. 

I have, &c, Daniel Webster. 

Lewis Cass, Esq., &c, &c, &c. 

Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 

New York, December 11, 1842. 

Sir, — Upon my arrival here yesterday, the duplicate of 
your letter of November 14 was delivered to me. I embrace 
the first moment in my power to acknowledge its receipt. 

I am too well aware of what is due from me to the govern- 
ment to renew, or unnecessarily to prolong, the discussion of 
the subject contained in my letter of October 3. In submitting 
to you the views I entertained, I fulfilled a duty which, in my 
opinion, circumstances imposed upon me. But I should con- 
sider myself obnoxious to the censure of improper interference, 
with which you have not sparingly reproached me, but from 
which I trust I shall satisfy you I am free, did I seek to make 
my correspondence with the department the vehicle for ob- 
truding my sentiments upon the government. Still, I am anx- 
ious not to be misunderstood, and more especially since you 
give me to understand that the communications which have 



206 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

passed between us upon this subject are to be published, and 
thus submitted to the great tribunal of public opinion, which 
will be called upon to decide respecting the course I have 
deemed it necessary to adopt, as well as the manner in which 
I have fulfilled the task. And as you have, in several instan- 
ces, misapprehended my views, and adapted your reasoning 
to your constructions rather than to my sentiments, and as I 
have full confidence in your desire to do me justice, I must beg 
leave briefly to lay before you such considerations connected 
with my letter, and your comments upon it, as are essential to 
a correct judgment between us. 

And, first, with respect to the procedure on my part. 

You object to my whole course of action in this matter, be- 
cause it appears to you to be " intended as a sort of protest or 
remonstrance against a transaction of the government," &c. 

I have been very unhappy in the mode in which I have ex- 
pressed myself, if I am justly liable to this charge. My letter 
is not a protest or a remonstrance. It is a simple answer to a 
dispatch which I had the honor to receive from you. In your 
letter of August 29, you communicated to me the views of the 
President in relation to the treaty then recently concluded with 
England ; and you also authorized me to make known these 
views to the French government. This I did, both in conver- 
sation and in writing. Here was a dispatch requiring my ac- 
tion, and which received it in good faith. But I did not coin- 
cide with you in opinion respecting an important bearing of 
this treaty. I thought it left us in a worse position than it 
found us ; and so thinking, I deemed it my right, and felt it my 
duty, to lay before you the impression which the whole matter 
had left upon my mind. I did so, and the result is before you. 
Under these circumstances, was I guilty of indiscretion, or of 
an impertinent interference, still more offensive, which, it seems 
to me, from the tone of your letter, is the construction you put 
upon my action ? 

This question will, perhaps, be best answered by another. 
Is it the duty of a diplomatic agent to receive all the commu- 
nications of his government, and to carry into effect their in- 
structions sub silentio, whatever may be his own sentiments in 
relation to them ? Or, is he not bound, as a faithful represent- 
ative, to communicate freely, but respectfully, his own views, 
that these may be considered and receive their due weight in 
that particular case, or in other circumstances involving sim- 
ilar considerations 1 It seems to me that the bare enunciation 
of the principle is all that is necessary for my justification. I 
am speaking now of the propriety of my action, not of the man- 
ner in which it was performed. I may have executed the task 
well or ill ; I may have introduced topics unadvisedly, and 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 207 

urged them indiscreetly. All this I leave without remark. 1 
am only endeavoring here to free myself from the serious 
charge which you bring against me. If I have misapprehend- 
ed the duties of an American diplomatic agent upon this sub- 
ject, I am well satisfied to have withdrawn, by a timely resig- 
nation, from a position in which my own self-respect would, 
not permit me to remain. And I may express the conviction 
that there is no government — certainly none this side of Con- 
stantinople — which would not encourage, rather than rebuke, 
the free expression of the views of their representatives in for- 
eign countries. But, independently of this general objection to 
all action on my part, you present me with another, perhaps 
still more formidable, but which is applicable only to the cir- 
cumstances of this case. Without repeating in full the view 
you urge upon this part of the subject, I shall condense the ob- 
jection into the proposition that the expression of my senti- 
ments to the government upon this occasion might induce En- 
gland hereafter " to rely upon my authority for a construction 
favorable to her own pretensions, and inconsistent with the in- 
terest and honor of the United States." 

In the first place, I would remark that I have written for my 
own government, and not for that of England. The publica- 
tion of my letter which is to produce this result is to be the act 
of the government, and not my act. But if the President should 
think that the slightest injury to the public interest would en- 
sue from the disclosure of my views, the letter may be buried 
in the archives of the department, and thus forgotten and ren- 
dered harmless. 

But, even were immediate publicity to be given to it, I know 
my own insignificance too well to believe it would produce the 
slightest influence upon the pretensions or the course of En- 
gland. The English public, and especially the English states- 
men, are too sagacious to need the suggestions of any foreign- 
er, and too pertinacious in the assertion of their claims to seek 
his authority for their support. When England, in her progress 
to that supremacy upon the ocean which has been the steady 
object of her ambition for centuries, and will continue to be so, 
abandons a single pretension after she has once advanced it, 
then there may be reason to believe she has adopted a system 
of moderation, which may be strengthened or weakened, as 
the opinion of others is favorable or unfavorable to her. There 
is no evidence that that time is near. But were it otherwise, 
does it follow that in all discussions between nations it is the 
duty of every man to believe his own government has attained 
every object which the interest or honor of the country re- 
quires ; or, not believing it, to remain silent, and to refrain 
from all representations, either to the government itself or to 



208 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

the public, with a view to the ultimate correction of the error, 
and to the relief of his country from a false position ? I must 
confess I do not carry my patriotic devotion thus far. I agree 
that when nations have appealed from argument to force, and 
when a war is raging, it is the duty of every citizen to put all 
other considerations behind him, and, avoiding profitless and 
party discussions upon the past, to join with head, heart, and 
hand to repel the common foe. At such a time I would not 
speak words of censure even to my countrymen, lest I should 
be overheard by the enemy. And that this is not with me a 
barren doctrine, I trust I have given sufficient evidence in per- 
ilous times. But I was not prepared for that excess of patri- 
otic zeal (pardon me the expression, for such it appears to me) 
which would carry this reserve into all the actions of the gov- 
ernment, as well in peace as in war. I believe that in our re- 
cent treaty with England sufficient precaution was not taken 
to guard against her claim to search our ships. This belief I 
entertain in common with many other citizens, in office and out 
of office ; and I, as well as they, have expressed it. It has 
been declared in the Senate, in the public journals, in every 
district of our country. And I can not feel that this avowal of 
our sentiments, in whatever form it is made, whether official 
or unofficial, justly subjects us to the charge of taking a course 
which may hereafter enable other governments to " set up new 
pretensions." 

Permit me now to advert to the serious charge you have 
made against me of venturing upon a statement which is a tis- 
sue of mistakes. This statement you quote, and it is that part 
of my letter in which, after showing that, to a Certain point of 
time, our national honor had been preserved inviolate, I pro- 
ceed to show that the subsequent course of events had not been 
equally fortunate. I remark, that England then urged the 
United States to enter into a conventional arrangement by 
which the joint action of the two countries in the suppression 
of the slave trade might be secured. You pronounce this state- 
ment a mistake, and assert that the proposition came from our 
government. 

That the particular mode in which the governments should 
act in concert, as finally arranged in the treaty, was suggested 
by yourself, I never doubted ; and if this is the construction I 
am to give to your denial of my correctness, there is no diffi- 
culty upon the subject. The question between us is untouched. 
All I said was, that England continued to prosecute the mat- 
ter ; that she presented it for negotiation ; and that we, there- 
fore, consented to its introduction ; and if Lord Ashburton did 
not come out with instructions from his government to en- 
deavor to effect some arrangement upon this subject, the world 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 200 

has strangely misunderstood one of the great objects of his 
mission, and I have misunderstood that paragraph in your first 
note where you say that Lord Ashburton comes with full pow- 
ers to negotiate and settle all matters in discussion between 
England and the United States. But the very fact of his 
coming here, and of his acceding to any stipulations respecting 
the slave trade, is conclusive proof that his government were 
desirous to obtain the co-operation of the United States. I 
had supposed our government would scarcely take the initia- 
tive in this matter, and urge it upon that of Great Britain, 
either in Washington or in London. If it did so, I can only 
express my regret, and confess that I have been led inadvert- 
ently into an error. 

You then proceed to remark, in continuation of this tissue of 
mistakes, that, in entering into this arrangement, the United 
States did not depart from the principle of avoiding European 
combinations upon a subject not American, because the aboli- 
tion of the slave trade is equally an American and European 
subject. This may be so. I may be wrong in the application 
of the principle ; but such an erroneous conclusion scarcely 
justifies the epithet of an adventurous statement — one of a tissue 
of mistakes. But, apart from this, I still think that combina- 
tions of this kind are among the "entangling alliances" against 
which the great statesman, whose exposition of our constitu- 
tion will go down to posterity with the instrument itself, 
warned his countrymen ; and the perpetually recurring diffi- 
culties, which are presenting themselves in the execution of 
the conventions between France and England upon this sub- 
ject, should be a caution to nations against the introduction of 
new maritime principles whose operations and results it is dif- 
ficult to foresee. 

But is the suppression of the African slave trade one o( 
those American objects in the attainment of which we ought 
to seek the co-operation of other nations, and regulate our own 
duties and theirs by treaty stipulations ? I do not think so. 
In the first place, the principle would necessarily lead us to 
form alliances with every maritime nation. It is not England 
alone whose flag rides over the seas. Other countries must 
co-operate, if any co-operation is necessary ; and, if we have 
made propositions to England to join us in this effort, I do not 
see why we stop there, and deprive ourselves of the aid which 
the action of other nations would afford. I doubt if the people 
of this country are prepared for such extensive combinations. 

But, again, while fully agreeing with you in all the odium 
you cast upon that infamous traffic, it appears to me that any 
object interesting to humanity, and in which nations may with 
propriety engage, has the same claim, if not in degree, at least 

O 



210 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

in principle, upon our interference, and calls upon us for a 
union with other nations to effect it. It may be easily seen, 
not where such a doctrine would conduct us — that escapes hu- 
man sagacity — but toward what ruinous consequences it leads. 

You conclude this branch of the subject by informing me 
that you are directed by the President to bring to my M serious 
consideration and reflection the propriety of such an assumed 
narration of facts as your dispatch in this respect puts forth." 
I shall not say one word to give the President any cause of 
offense ; and, if I felt that I was justly obnoxious to this censure, 
I should submit to the rebuke in silence. He would have a 
right to make it, and it would be my duty to acquiesce ; but I 
have that confidence in his innate love of justice, that he will 
receive my explanations, and judge me by my .words, and not 
by unauthorized constructions. 

Now, in all that I have said in the paragraph to which you 
allude, and which you have so strongly qualified, you have 
pointed out but one fact as erroneous, and that is the assertion 
that the introduction of the subject of the slave trade into the 
treaty was due to the application of England ; and whether 
even this was an error, depends upon the construction to be 
given to your explanation. All else — I repeat it, all else, to 
the very least idea, is matter of inference ; it is my deduction 
from the circumstances of the case. I may be right or wrong, 
logically, in the conclusions I have reached ; but certainly I 
am not morally responsible for their correctness, as I should 
be if I asserted merely naked facts. It is, therefore, with not 
a little astonishment I have read and re-read what I wrote, and 
the commentary you have been pleased to make upon it. It 
is neither necessary nor proper that I should renew the gen- 
eral subject of my letter ; and, therefore, I do not feel it my 
duty to trouble you with any remarks respecting the views 
you have presented me of the pretensions of the British gov- 
ernment to search our ships ; but, when you proceed to array 
me against myself, I must claim the right to vindicate my own 
consistency. You quote me, and quote me correctly, as say- 
ing that, up to the delivery of the annual message of 1841, our 
national dignity was uncompromited. You then ask what has 
since occurred to compromit this dignity ? and you add, em- 
phatically, that I shall myself be the judge of this, because, in 
a subsequent part of my dispatch, I say the mutual rights of 
the parties are wholly unchanged ; and you ask, if they are 
unchanged, what ground there is on which to found a com- 
plaint against the treaty. I think that a very brief retrospect 
will be the best answer I can give to this question, and that it 
will redeem me from the implied charge of inconsistency. 

I never said nor intimated in my dispatch to you, nor in any 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 211 

manner whatever, that our government had conceded to that 
of England the right to search our ships. That idea, however, 
pervades your letter, and is very apparent in that part of it 
which brings to my observation the possible effect of my views 
upon the English government ; but in this you do me, though. 
I am sure, unintentionally, great injustice. I repeatedly state 
that the recent treaty leaves the rights of the parties as it 
found them. My difficulty is not that we have made a positive 
concession, but that we have acted unadvisedly in not mak- 
ing the abandonment of this pretension a previous condition 
to any conventional arrangement upon the general subject. I 
had supposed, till I read your letter, that this view was too 
distinctly expressed in my dispatch to admit of any miscon- 
struction. I will condense into a small space what I deem it 
necessary to say in defense of my consistency. 

England claimed the right, in order, as she said, to carry 
into effect certain treaties she had formed for the suppression 
of the slave trade, to board and search our vessels upon the 
high seas wherever she might find them. Our government, 
with energy and promptness, repelled this pretension. Short- 
ly after, a special British embassador arrived in our country, 
having powers to treat upon this matter of the slave trade. 
The negotiation terminated by an arrangement which secures 
the co-operation of the United States in the efforts that En- 
gland is making upon this subject ; but not a word is said upon 
the serious claim that subjects to the naval inquisition of a com- 
mercial rival our ships, which the enterprise of our merchants 
is sending to every part of our globe ; and yet this claim arises 
out of the very subject-matter embraced in the treaty. We 
negotiate with England for the suppression of the slave trade 
at the very moment her statesmen are telling us, in no meas- 
ured terms, that, to suppress it, she will violate our flag, and 
that she will never give up this pretension. Now here, it ap- 
pears to me, the government should have stopped. The En- 
glish negotiator should have been told, " We abhor as much 
as you do the traffic in human beings, and we will do all that 
Our peculiar institutions permit to put an end to it ; but we 
will not suffer this matter to be made a pretext for wounding 
our honor and violating our rights ; we will not take a single 
step till you renounce this claim ; we have denounced it al- 
ready ; and, if we should negotiate upon the subject-matter 
without settling this preliminary question, it may seem like an 
abandonment of the ground we have taken, or an indifference 
to the consequences." 

Had this course been pursued, the sincerity of the British 
government would have undergone a practical test, from which 
there would have been no escape. It would not have been 



212 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

necessary to quote the last dispatch of Lord Aberdeen to show 
what he meant in another, or Lord Palmerston in the first. If 
such a proposition had been made and accepted, our honor 
would have been vindicated, our rights secured, and a bright 
example of sincerity and moderation would have been given 
to the world by a great nation. If it had been rejected, that 
would have proved that our co-operation in the suppression 
of the slave trade was a question of minor importance, to be 
sacrificed to the preservation of a pretension intended to in- 
troduce an entire change in the maritime police of the world. 

Why this very obvious course was not adopted, I am utterly 
at a loss to conjecture ; and that it was not, is precisely the 
objection to which the whole arrangement is liable. Instead 
of the high ground we should then have occupied, we now 
find ourselves seriously discussing the question whether or not 
England will enforce this claim. That she will do so when 
her interest requires it, I have no more doubt than I have that 
she has already given us abundant proof that the received 
code of public law is but a feeble barrier when it stands in the 
way of power and ambition. Lord Palmerston and Lord Aber- 
deen both tell us she will. 

You refer to that part of my letter in which I observe that 
the effect of the new stipulation is to place our municipal laws, 
in some measure, beyond the reach of Congress, and remark 
that such is often the effect of commercial treaties. It is so, 
and we can only expect to obtain commercial advantages by 
stipulations for corresponding advantages, which, while they 
endure, are beyond the reach of ordinary legislation. This is 
matter of necessity. But this necessity does not exist in the 
punishment of crimes. We are able to enforce our own laws; 
and I do not see that the power to enforce those of England 
gives us any just compensation for permitting her to interfere 
in our criminal code, whether the offense is committed upon 
the land or upon the water. It seems to me a principle fraught 
w r ith dangerous consequences, and which a prudent govern- 
ment had better avoid. 

There is but one other topic which I consider it necessary 
to advert to ; but that is an important one, and I pray your in- 
dulgence while I briefly allude to it. 

You speak of the ratification of the treaty by the President 
and Senate, and add that it does not appear to you that I had 
any grounds of complaint because their opinion was at vari- 
ance with mine. I submit that this is making an issue for me 
which I have not made for myself. In no part of my letter 
will be found the slightest imputation upon the President or 
Senate for the ratification of this treaty. I could not make 
such an imputation, for the plain reason that I never censured 






DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 213 

the ratification. I am under the impression that if I had had 
a vote to give, I should have been found among the majority 
upon that occasion. This, however, would have been upon 
the condition that some declaration should be annexed to the 
act of ratification denouncing the pretension to search our 
ships. I would then have sent the instrument to the British 
government, and placed upon them the responsibility of its 
final rejection or ratification ; and I am sure we should have 
had the opinion of the world with us under such circumstances. 

The rejection of a treaty duly negotiated is a serious ques- 
tion ; to be avoided, whenever it can be without too great a 
sacrifice. Though the national faith is not actually commit- 
ted, still it is more or less engaged ; and there were peculiar 
circumstances, growing out of long-standing difficulties, which 
rendered an amicable agreement of the various matters in dis- 
pute with England a subject of great national interest. But 
the negotiation of a treaty is a far different subject. Topics 
are omitted or introduced at the discretion of the negotiators, 
and they are responsible, to use the language of an eminent 
and able senator, for " what it contains and what it omits." 
This treaty, in my opinion, omits a most important and neces- 
sary stipulation, and therefore, as it seems to me, its negotia- 
tion in this particular was unfortunate for the country. 

In conclusion, I beg you to tender to the President my thanks 
for the kind appreciation he made of my services in the letter 
of recall, and to express to him my hope that, on a full consid- 
eration of the circumstances, he will be satisfied that if my 
course was not one he can approve, it, at all events, was such 
as to relieve me from the charge of an improper interference 
in a subject not within the sphere of my duties. 

I must pray you, as an act of justice, to give the same pub- 
licity to this letter that you may give to my letter of October 
3d, and to your answer. 

Very respectfully, &c, Lewis Cass. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of Stale. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Cass. 

Department of State, Washington, December 00, 1812. 

Sir, — Your letter of the 11th instant has been submitted to 
the President. He directs me to say, in reply, that he contin- 
ues to regard your correspondence, of which this letter is part, 
as being quite irregular from the beginning. You had asked 
leave to retire from your mission ; the leave was granted by 
the President, with kind and friendly remarks upon the manner 
in which you had discharged its duties. Having asked for this 
honorable recall, which was promptly given, you afterward 
addressed to this department your letter of the 3d of October, 



214 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

which, however it may appear to you, the President can not 
but consider as a remonstrance, a protest against the treaty of 
the 9th of August ; in other words, an attack upon his admin- 
istration for the negotiation and conclusion of that treaty. 
He certainly was not prepared for this. It came upon him 
with no small surprise, and he still feels that you must have 
been, at the moment, under the influence of temporary impres- 
sions which he can not but hope have, ere now, worn away. 

A few remarks upon some of the points of your last letter 
must now close the correspondence. 

In the first place, you object to my having called your letter 
of October 3d a " protest or remonstrance" against a transac- 
tion of the government, and observe that you must have been 
unhappy in the mode of expressing yourself, if you were liable 
to this charge. 

What other construction your letter will bear, I can not per- 
ceive. The transaction was finished No letter or remarks 
of yourself, or any one else, could undo it, if desirable. Your 
opinions were unsolicited. If given as a citizen, then it was al- 
together unusual to address them to this department in an offi- 
cial dispatch ; if as a public functionary, the whole subject- 
matter was quite aside from the duties of your particular sta- 
tion. In your letter you did not propose any thing to be done, 
but objected to what had been done. You did not suggest any 
method of remedying what you were pleased to consider a de- 
fect, but stated what you thought to be reasons for fearing its 
consequences. You declared that there had been, in your opin- 
ion, an omission to assert American rights ; to which omission 
you gave the department to understand that you would never 
have consented. 

In all this there is nothing but protest and remonstrance ; 
and, though your letter be not formally entitled such, I can not 
see that it can be construed, in effect, as any thing else ; and I 
must continue to think, therefore, that the terms used are en- 
tirely applicable and proper. 

In the next place, you say, " You give me to understand that 
the communications which have passed between us on this sub- 
ject are to be published and submitted to the great tribunal of 
public opinion." 

It would have been better if you had quoted my remark with 
entire correctness. What I said was, not that the communi- 
cations which have passed between us are to be published, or 
must be published, but that " it may become necessary hereaf- 
ter to publish your letter, in connection with other correspond- 
ence of the mission ; and, although it is not to be presumed 
that you looked to such publication, because such a presump- 
tion would impute to you a claim to put forth your private 






\ 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 215 

opinions upon the conduct of the President and Senate, in a 
transaction finished and concluded, through the imposing form 
of a public dispatch ; yet, if published, it can not be foreseen 
how far England might hereafter rely on your authority for a 
construction favorable to her own pretensions, and inconsistent 
with the interest and honor of the United States." 

In another part of your letter you observe, " The publication 
of my letter, which is to produce this result, is to be the act of 
the government, and not my act. But if the President should 
think that the slightest injury to the public interest would en- 
sue from the disclosure of my views, the letter may be buried 
in the archives of the department, and thus forgotten and ren- 
dered harmless." 

To this I have to remark, in the first place, that instances 
have occurred in other times, not unknown to you, in which 
highly important letters from ministers of the United States, 
in Europe, to their own government, have found their way into 
the newspapers of Europe, when that government itself held it 
to be inconsistent with the interest of the United States to 
make such letter public. 

But it is hardly worth while to pursue a topic like this. 

You are pleased to ask : " Is it the duty of a diplomatic agent 
to receive all the communications of his government, and to 
carry into effect their instructions sub silentio, whatever may 
be his own sentiments in relation to them ; or is he not bound, 
as a faithful representative, to communicate freely, but respect- 
fully, his own views, that these may be considered, and receive 
their due weight, in that particular case, or in other circum- 
stances involving similar considerations 1 It seems to me that 
the bare enunciation of the principle is all that is necessary for 
my justification. I am speaking now of the propriety of my 
action, not of the manner in which it was performed. I may 
have executed the task well or ill. I may have introduced top- 
ics unadvisedly, and urged them indiscreetly. All this I leave 
without remark. I am only endeavoring here to free myself 
from the serious charge which vou brine: against me. If I 

O v CD O 

have misapprehended the duties of an American diplomatic 
agent upon this subject, I am well satisfied to have withdrawn, 
by a timely resignation, from a position in which my own self- 
respect would not permit me to remain. And I may express 
the conviction that there is no government, certainly none this 
side of Constantinople, which would not encourage rather than 
rebuke the free expression of the views of their representatives 
in foreign countries." 

I answer, certainly not. In the letter to which you were re- 
plying, it was fully stated that, " in common with every other 
citizen of the republic, you have an unquestionable right to 



216 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

form opinions upon public transactions and the conduct of 
public men. But it will hardly be thought to be among either 
the duties or the privileges of a minister abroad to make 
formal remonstrances and protests against proceedings of the 
various branches of the government at home, upon subjects in 
relation to which he himself has not been charged with any 
duty, or partaken any responsibility." 

You have not been requested to bestow your approbation 
upon the treaty, however gratifying it would have been to the 
President to see that, in that respect, you united with other 
distinguished public agents abroad. Like all citizens of the re- 
public, you are quite at liberty to exercise your own judgment 
upon that as upon other transactions. But neither your ob- 
servations nor this concession cover the case. They do not 
show that, as a public minister abroad, it is a part of your offi- 
cial functions, in a public dispatch, to remonstrate against the 
conduct of the government at home in relation to a transac- 
tion in which you bore no part, and for which you were in no 
way answerable. The President and Senate must be permitted 
to judge for themselves in a matter solely within their con- 
trol. Nor do I know that, in complaining of your protest 
against their proceedings in a case of this kind, any thing has 
been done to warrant, on your part, an invidious and unjust 
reference to Constantinople. If you could show, by the gen- 
eral practice of diplomatic functionaries in the civilized part 
of the world — and, more especially, if you could show by any 
precedent drawn from the conduct of the many distinguished 
men who have represented the government of the United 
States abroad — that your letter of the 3d of October was, in 
its general object, tone, and character, within the usual limits 
of diplomatic correspondence, you may be quite assured that 
the President would not have recourse to the code of Turkey 
in order to find precedents the other way. 

You complain that, in the letter from this department of the 
14th of November, a statement contained in yours of the 3d 
of October is called a tissue of mistakes, and you attempt to 
show the impropriety of this appellation. Let the point be dis- 
tinctly stated, and what you say in reply be then considered. 

In your letter of October 3d you remark, "that England 
then urged the United States to enter into a conventional ar- 
rangement, by which we might be pledged to concur with her 
in measures for the suppression of the slave trade. Until then, 
we had executed our own laws in our own way; but, yielding 
to this application, and departing from our former principle of 
avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American, 
we stipulated in a solemn treaty that we would carry into ef- 
fect our own laws, and fixed the minimum force we would em- 
ploy for that purpose." 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 217 

The letter of this department of the 14th of November hav- 
ing quoted this passage, proceeds to observe, that " the Presi- 
dent can not conceive how you should have been led to adven- 
ture upon such a statement as this. It is but a tissue of mis- 
takes. England did not urge the United States to enter into 
this conventional arrangement. The United States yielded to 
no application from England. The proposition for abolishing 
the slave trade, as it stands in the treaty, was an American 
proposition ; it originated with the executive government of 
the United States, which cheerfully assumes all its responsibil- 
ity. It stands upon it as its own mode of fulfilling its duties 
and accomplishing its objects. Nor have the United States de- 
parted in the slightest degree from their former principles of 
avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American ; 
because the abolition of the African slave trade is an Ameri- 
can subject as emphatically as it is a European subject, and, 
indeed, more so, inasmuch as the government of the United 
States took the first great step in declaring that trade unlaw- 
ful, and in attempting its extinction. The abolition of this 
traffic is an object of the highest interest to the American peo- 
ple and the American government ; and you seem strangely to 
have overlooked altogether the important fact, that nearly 
thirty years ago, by the Treaty of Ghent, the United States 
bound themselves, by solemn compact with England, to con- 
tinue their efforts to promote its entire abolition ; both parties 
pledging themselves by that treaty to use their best endeav- 
ors to accomplish so desirable an object." 

Now, in answer to this, you observe in your last letter, 
" that the particular mode in which the governments should 
act in concert, as finally arranged in the treaty, was suggested 
by yourself, I never doubted. And if this is the construction 
I am to give to your denial of my correctness, there is no dif- 
ficulty upon the subject. The question between us is un- 
touched. All I said was, that England continued to prosecute 
the matter ; that she presented it for negotiation, and that we 
thereupon consented to its introduction. And if Lord Ashbur- 
ton did not come out with instructions from his government to 
endeavor to effect some arrangement upon this subject, the 
world has strangely misunderstood one of the great objects of 
his mission, and I have misunderstood that paragraph in your 
first note, when you say that Lord Ashburton comes with full 
powers to negotiate and settle all matters in discussion be- 
tween England and the United States. But the very fact of 
his coming here, and of his acceding to any stipulations respect- 
ing the slave trade, is conclusive proof that his government 
were desirous to obtain the co-operation of the United States. 
I had supposed that our government would scarcely take the 



218 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

initiative in this matter, and urge it upon that of Great Britain, 
either in Washington or in London. If it did so, I can only 
express my regret, and confess that I have been led inadvert- 
ently into an error." 

It would appear from all this, that that which, in your first 
letter, appeared as a direct statement of facts, of which you 
would naturally be presumed to have had knowledge, sinks at 
last into inferences and conjectures. But, in attempting to es- 
cape from some of the mistakes of this tissue, you have fallen 
into others. "All I said was," you observe, "that England 
continued to prosecute the matter ; that she presented it for 
negotiation, and that we thereupon consented to its introduc- 
tion." Now the English minister no more presented this sub- 
ject for negotiation than the government of the United States 
presented it. Nor can it be said that the United States consent- 
ed to its introduction in any other sense than it may be said that 
the British minister consented to it. Will you be good enough 
to review the series of your own assertions on this subject, and 
see whether they can possibly be regarded merely as a state- 
ment of your own inferences ? Your only authentic fact is a 
general one, that the British minister came clothed with full 
power to negotiate and settle all matters in discussion. This, 
you say, is conclusive proof that his government was desirous 
to obtain the co-operation of the United States respecting the 
slave trade ; and then you infer that England continued to 
prosecute this matter, and presented it for negotiation, and that 
the United States consented to its introduction ; and give to 
this inference the shape of a direct statement of a fact. 

You might have made the same remarks, and with the same 
propriety, in relation to the subject of the " Creole," that of 
impressment, the extradition of fugitive criminals, or any thing 
else embraced in the treaty or in the correspondence, and then 
have converted these inferences of your own into so many 
facts. And it is upon conjectures like these, it is upon such in- 
ferences of your own, that you made the direct and formal 
statement in your letter of the 3d of October, that " England 
then urged the United States to enter into a conventional ar- 
rangement, by which we might be pledged to concur with her 
in measures for the suppression of the slave trade. Until then, 
we had executed our laws in our own way ; but, yielding to 
this application, and departing from our former principle of 
avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American, 
we stipulated in a solemn treaty that we would carry into ef- 
fect our own laws, and fixed the minimum force we would em- 
ploy for that purpose." 

The President was well warranted, therefore, in requesting 
your serious reconsideration and review of that statement. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 219 

Suppose your letter to go before the public unanswered and 
uncontradicted ; suppose it to mingle itself with the general 
political history of the country, as an official letter among the 
archives of the Department of State, would not the general 
mass of readers understand you as reciting facts, rather than 
as drawing your own conclusions ? as stating history, rather 
than as presenting an argument ? It is of an incorrect nar- 
rative that the President complains. It is that, in your hotel 
at Paris, you should undertake to write a history of a very del- 
icate part of a negotiation carried on at Washington, with 
which you had nothing to do, and of the history of which you 
had no authentic information ; and which history, as you nar- 
rate it, reflects not a little on the independence, wisdom, and 
public spirit of the administration. 

As of the history of this part of the negotiation you were not 
well informed, the President can not but think it would have 
been more just in you to have refrained from any attempt to 
give an account of it. 

You observe, further : " I never mentioned in my dispatch 
to you, nor in any manner whatever, that our government had 
conceded to that of England the right to search our ships. 
That idea, however, pervades your letter, and is very appar- 
ent in that part of it which brings to my observation the pos- 
sible effect of my views upon the English government. But in 
this you do me, though, I am sure, unintentionally, great injus- 
tice. I repeatedly state that the recent treaty leaves the rights 
of the parties as it found them. My difficulty is not that we 
have made a positive concession, but that we have acted un- 
advisedly in not making the abandonment of this pretension a 
previous condition to any conventional arrangement upon the 
general subject." 

On this part of your letter I must be allowed to make two 
remarks : 

The first is, inasmuch as the treaty gives no color or pretext 
whatever to any right of searching our ships, a declaration 
against such a right would have been no more suitable to this 
treaty than a declaration against the right of sacking our towns 
in time of peace, or any other outrage. 

The rights of merchant vessels of the United States on the 
high seas, as understood by this government, have been clearly 
and fully asserted. As asserted, they will be maintained ; nor 
would a declaration such as you propose have increased either 
its resolution or its ability in this respect. The government 
of the United States relies on its own power, and on the effect- 
ive support of the people, to assert successfully all the rights 
of all its citizens, on the sea as well as on the land ; and it asks 
respect for these rights not as a boon or favor from any nation. 



220 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

The President's Message, most certainly, is a clear declaration 
of what the country understands to be its rights, and his de- 
termination to maintain them — not a mere promise to negotiate 
for these rights, or to endeavor to bring other powers into an 
acknowledgment of them, either express or implied. Where- 
as, if I understand the meaning of this part of your letter, you 
would have advised that something should have been offered 
to England which she might have regarded as a benefit, but 
coupled with such a declaration or condition as that, if she re- 
ceived the boon, it would have been a recognition by her of a 
claim which we make as matter of right. The President's 
view of the proper duty of the government has certainly been 
quite different. Being convinced that the doctrine asserted by 
this government is the true doctrine of the law of nations, and 
feeling the competency of the government to uphold and en- 
force it for itself, he has not sought, but, on the contrary, has 
sedulously avoided, to change this ground, and to place the just 
rights of the country upon the assent, express or implied, of 
any power whatever. 

The government thought no skillfully extorted promises nec- 
essary in any such cases. It asks no such pledges of any na- 
tion. If its character for ability and readiness to protect and 
defend its own rights and dignity is not sufficient to preserve 
them from violation, no interpolation of promise to respect 
them, ingeniously woven into treaties, would be likely to afford 
such protection. And, as our rights and liberties depend for 
existence upon our power to maintain them, general and vague 
protests are not likely to be more effectual than the Chinese 
method of defending their towns, by painting grotesque and 
hideous figures on the walls to fright away assailing foes. 

My other remark on this portion of your letter is this : 

Suppose a declaration to the effect that this treaty should 
not be considered as sacrificing any American rights had been 
appended, and the treaty, thus fortified, had been sent to Great 
Britain, as you propose ; and suppose that that government, 
with equal ingenuity, had appended an equivalent written dec- 
laration that it should not be considered as sacrificing any 
British right, how much more defined would have been the 
rights of either party, or how much clearer the meaning and 
interpretation of the treaty, by these reservations on both sides? 
Or, in other words, what is the value of a protest on one side, 
balanced by an exactly equivalent protest on the other? 

No nation is presumed to sacrifice its rights, or give up what 
justly belongs to it, unless it expressly stipulates that, for some 
good reason or adequate consideration, it does make such re- 
linquishment ; and an unnecessary asseveration that it does not 
intend to sacrifice just rights would seem only calculated to in- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 221 

vite aggression. Such proclamations would seem better de- 
vised for concealing weakness and apprehension, than for man- 
ifesting conscious strength and self-reliance, or for inspiring 
respect in others. 

Toward the end of your letter you are pleased to observe : 

" The rejection of a treaty, duly negotiated, is a serious ques- 
tion, to be avoided whenever it can be without too great a sac- 
rifice. Though the national faith is not actually committed, 
still it is more or less engaged. And there were peculiar cir- 
cumstances growing out of long-standing difficulties, which 
rendered an amicable arrangement of the various matters in 
dispute with England a subject of great national interest. But 
the negotiation of a treaty is a far different subject. Topics 
are omitted or introduced at the discretion of the negotiators, 
and they are responsible, to use the language of an eminent and 
able senator, for ' what it contains and what it omits.' This 
treaty, in my opinion, omits a most important and necessary 
stipulation ; and, therefore, as it seems to me, its negotiation, in 
this particular, was unfortunate for the country." 

The President directs me to say, in reply to this, that in the 
Treaty of Washington no topics were omitted, and no topics in- 
troduced, at the mere discretion of the negotiator ; that the ne- 
gotiation proceeded from step to step, and from day to day, un- 
der his own immediate supervision and direction ; that he him- 
self takes the responsibility for what the treaty contains and 
what it omits, and cheerfully leaves the merits of the whole to 
the judgment of the country. 

I now conclude this letter, and close this correspondence, by 
repeating once more the expression of the President's regret 
that you should have commenced it by your letter of the 3d of 
October. 

It is painful to him to have with you any cause of difference. 
He has a just appreciation of your character and your public 
services at home and abroad. He can not but persuade him- 
self that you must be aware yourself, by this time, that your 
letter of October was written under erroneous impressions, 
and that there is no foundation for the opinions, respecting the 
treaty, which it expresses ; and that it would have been far 
better on all accounts if no such letter had been written. 

I have, &c, Daniel Webster. 

Lewis Cass, Esq., Late Minister of the United States at Paris. 



222 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 



PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE, TRANSMITTING THE 
TREATY OF WASHINGTON TO THE SENATE. 

To the Senate of the United States : 

I have the satisfaction to communicate to the Senate the re- 
sults of the negotiations recently had in this city with the 
British minister special and extraordinary. 

These results comprise : 

1st. A treaty to settle and define the boundaries between the 
territories of the United States and the possessions of her 
Britannic majesty in North America, for the suppression of the 
African slave trade, and the surrender of criminals, fugitive 
from justice, in certain cases. 

2d. A correspondence on the subject of the interference of 
the colonial authorities of the British West Indies with Ameri- 
can merchant vessels driven by stress of weather, or carried 
by violence, into the ports of those colonies. 

3d. A correspondence upon the subject of the attack and de- 
struction of the steam-boat Caroline. 

4th. A correspondence on the subject of impressment. 

If this treaty shall receive the approbation of the Senate, it 
will terminate a difference respecting boundary which has long 
subsisted between the two governments, has been the subject 
of several ineffectual attempts at settlement, and has some- 
times led to great irritation, not without danger of disturbing 
the existing peace. Both the United States and the states 
more immediately concerned have entertained no doubt of the 
validity of the American title to all the territory which has 
been in dispute ; but that title was controverted, and the gov- 
ernment of the United States had agreed to make the dispute 
a subject of arbitration. One arbitration had been actually 
had, but had failed to settle the controversy ; and it was found, 
at the commencement of last year, that a correspondence had 
been in progress between the two governments for a joint 
commission, with an ultimate reference to an umpire or arbi- 
trator, with authority to make a final decision. That corre- 
spondence, however, had been retarded by various occurren- 
ces, and had come to no definite result when the special mis- 
sion of Lord Ashburton was announced. This movement on 
the part of England afforded, in the judgment of the execu- 
tive, a favorable opportunity for making an attempt to settle 
this long-existing controversy by some agreement or treaty, 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 223 

without further reference to arbitration. It seemed entirely 
proper that, if this purpose were entertained, consultation 
should be had with the authorities of the States of Maine and 
Massachusetts. Letters, therefore, of which copies are here- 
with communicated, were addressed to the governors of those 
states, suggesting that commissioners should be appointed by 
each of them, respectively, to repair to this city and confer 
with the authorities of this government, on a line by agree- 
ment or compromise, with its equivalents and compensations. 
This suggestion was met by both states in a spirit of candor 
and patriotism, and promptly complied with. Four commis- 
sioners on the part of Maine, and three on the part of Massa- 
chusetts, all persons of distinction and high character, were 
duly appointed and commissioned, and lost no time in present- 
ing themselves at the seat of the government of the United 
States. These commissioners have been in correspondence 
with this government during the period of the discussions ; 
have enjoyed its confidence and freest communications ; have 
aided the general object with their council and advice ; and, 
in the end, have unanimously signified their assent to the line 
proposed in the treaty. 

Ordinarily, it would be no easy task to reconcile and bring 
together such a variety of interests in a matter in itself diffi- 
cult and perplexed ; but the efforts of the government, in at- 
tempting to accomplish this desirable object, have been second- 
ed and sustained by a spirit of accommodation and conciliation 
on the part of the states concerned, to which much of the suc- 
cess of these efforts is to be ascribed. 

Connected with the settlement of the line of the northeast- 
ern boundary, so far as it respects the States of Maine and 
Massachusetts, is the continuation of that line along the High- 
lands to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River. 
Which of the sources of that stream is entitled to this charac- 
ter has been matter of controversy, and is of some interest to 
the State of New Hampshire. The King of the Netherlands 
decided the main branch to be the northwesternmost head of 
the Connecticut. This did not satisfy the claim of New Hamp- 
shire. The line agreed to in the present treaty follows the 
Highlands to the head of Hall's Stream, and thence down that 
river, embracing the whole claim of New Hampshire, and es- 
tablishing her title to 100,000 acres of territorv more than she 
would have had by the decision of the King of the Nether- 
lands. 

By the treaty of 1783, the line is to proceed down the Con- 
necticut River to the 45th degree of north latitude, and thence 
west, by that parallel, till it strikes the St. Lawrence. Recent 
examinations having ascertained that the line heretofore re- 



224 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

ceived as the true line of latitude between those points was 
erroneous, and that the correction of this error would not only 
leave, on the British side, a considerable tract of territory 
heretofore supposed to belong to the States of Vermont and 
New York, but also Rouse's Point, the site of a military work 
of the United States ; it has been regarded as an object of im- 
portance, not only to establish the rights and jurisdiction of 
those states up to the line to which they have been considered 
to extend, but also to comprehend Rouse's Point within the 
territory of the United States. The relinquishment by the 
British government of all the territory south of the line here- 
tofore considered to be the true line, has been obtained ; and 
the consideration for this relinquishment is to enure, by the 
provisions of the treaty, to the States of Maine and Massa- 
chusetts. 

The line of boundary, then, from the source of the St. 
Croix to the St. Lawrence, so far as Maine and Massachu- 
setts are concerned, is fixed by their own consent, and for con- 
siderations satisfactory to them ; the chief of these considera- 
tions being the privilege of transporting the lumber and agri- 
cultural products grown and raised in Maine on the waters of 
the St. John's and its tributaries down that river to the ocean, 
free from imposition or disability. The importance of this 
privilege, perpetual in its terms, to a country covered at pres- 
ent by pine forests of great value, and much of it capable 
hereafter of agricultural improvement, is not a matter upon 
which the opinion of intelligent men is likely to be divided. 

So far as New Hampshire is concerned, the treaty secures 
all that she requires ; and New York and Vermont are quieted 
to the extent of their claim and occupation. The difference 
which would be made in the northern boundary of these two 
states, by correcting the parallel of latitude, may be seen on 
Tanner's maps (1836), new atlas, maps Nos. 6 and 9. 

From the intersection of the 45° of north latitude with the 
St. Lawrence, and along that river and the lakes to the water 
communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, the 
line was definitely agreed on by the commissioners of the two 
governments, under the 6th article of the Treaty of Ghent. 
But between this last-mentioned point and the Lake of the 
Wood, the commissioners acting under the 7th article of that 
treaty found several matters of disagreement, and therefore 
made no joint report to their respective governments. The 
first of these was Sugar Island, or St. George's Island, lying in 
St. Mary's River, or the water communication between Lukes 
Huron and Superior. By the present treaty this island is em- 
braced in the territories of the United States. Both from soil 
and position, it is regarded as of much value. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 225 

Another matter of difference was the manner of extending the 
line from the point at which the commissioners arrived, north 
of Isle Royale, in Lake Superior, to the Lake of the Woods. 
The British commissioner insisted on proceeding to Fond du 
Lac, at the southwest angle of the lake, and thence, by the 
River St. Louis, to the Rainy Lake. The American commis- 
sioner supposed the true course to be, to proceed by way of 
the Dog River. Attempts were made to compromise this dif- 
ference, but without success. The details of these proceed- 
ings are found at length in the printed separate reports of the 
commissioners. 

From the imperfect knowledge of this remote country at 
the date of the treaty of peace, some of the descriptions in that 
treaty do not harmonize with its natural features, as now as- 
certained. " Long Lake" is nowhere to be found under that 
name. There is reason for supposing, however, that the sheet 
of water intended by that name is the estuary at the mouth of 
Pigeon River. The present treaty, therefore, adopts that es- 
tuary and river, and afterward pursues the usual route, across 
the height of land by the various portages and small lakes, till 
the line reaches Rainy Lake ; from which the commissioners 
agreed on the extension of it to its termination, in the north- 
west angle of the Lake of the Woods. The region of country 
on and near the shore of the lake, between Pigeon River on 
the north, and Fond du Lac and the River St. Louis on the 
south and west, considered valuable as a mineral region, is 
thus included within the United States. It embraces a territory 
of four millions of acres, northward of the claim set up by the 
British commissioner under the Treaty of Ghent. From the 
height of land at the head of Pigeon River, westerly to the 
Rainy Lake, the country is understood to be of little value, 
being described by surveyors, and marked on the map, as a 
region of rock and water. 

From the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods, which 
is found to be in latitude 45° 23' 55" north, existing treaties 
require the line to be run due south to its intersection with the 
45th parallel, and thence along that parallel to the Rocky 
Mountains. 

After sundry informal communications with the British min- 
ister upon the subject of the claims of the two countries to ter- 
ritory west of the Rocky Mountains, so little probability was 
found to exist of coming to any agreement on that subject at 
present that it was not thought expedient to make it one of the 
subjects of formal negotiation, to be entered upon between this 
government and the British minister, as part of his duties under 
his special mission. 

By the treaty of 1783, the line of division along the rivers 

P 



226 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

and lakes, from the place where the 45th parallel of north lati- 
tude strikes the St. Lawrence, to the outlet of Lake Superior, is 
invariably to be drawn through the middle of such waters, 
and not through the middle of their main channels. Such a 
line, if extended according to the literal terms of the treaty, 
would, it is obvious, occasionally intersect islands. The man- 
ner in which the commissioners of the two governments dealt 
with this difficult subject may be seen in their reports. But 
where the line, thus following the middle of the river, or water 
course, did not meet with islands, yet it was liable sometimes 
to leave the only practicable navigable channel altogether on 
one side. The treaty made no provision for the common use 
of the waters by the citizens and subjects of both countries. 

It has happened, therefore, in a few instances, that the use of 
the river, in particular places, would be greatly diminished to 
one party or the other, if, in fact, there was not a choice in the 
use of channels and passages. Thus, at the Long Sault, in 
the St. Lawrence, a dangerous passage, practicable only for 
boats, the only safe run is between the Long Sault Islands and 
Barnhart's Island, all which belong to the United States on one 
side, and the American shore on the other. On the other 
hand, by far the best passage for vessels of any depth of wa- 
ter, from Lake Erie into the Detroit River, is between Bois 
Blanc, a British island, and the Canadian shore. So, again, 
there are several channels or passages, of different degrees of 
facility and usefulness, between several islands in the River 
St. Clair, at or near its entry into the lake of that name. In 
these three cases, the treaty provides that all the several pas- 
sages and channels shall be free and open to the use of the cit- 
izens and subjects of both parties. 

The treaty obligations subsisting between the two countries 
for the suppression of the African slave trade, and the com- 
plaints made to this government within the last three or four 
years, many of them but too well founded, of the visitation, seiz- 
ure, and detention of American vessels on that coast by Brit- 
ish cruisers, could not but form a delicate and highly import- 
ant part of the negotiations which have now been held. 

The early and prominent part which the government of 
the United States has taken for the abolition of this unlawful 
and inhuman traffic, is well known. By the tenth article of 
the Treaty of Ghent, it is declared that the traffic in slaves 
is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice, 
and that both his majesty and the United States are desirous 
of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition ; and 
it is thereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use 
their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object. 
The government of the United States has, by law, declared 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 227 

the African slave trade piracy ; and at its suggestion other na- 
tions have made similar enactments. It has not been wanting 
in honest and zealous efforts, made in conformity with the 
wishes of the whole country, to accomplish the entire aboli- 
tion of the traffic in slaves upon the African coast ; but these 
efforts and those of other countries directed to the same end 
have proved, to a considerable degree, unsuccessful. Treaties 
are known to have been entered into some years ago between 
England and France, by which the former power, which usu- 
ally maintains a large naval force on the African station, was 
authorized to seize, and bring in for adjudication, vessels found 
engaged in the slave trade under the French flag. 

It is known that in December last a treaty was signed in 
London by the representatives of England, France, Russia, 
Prussia, and Austria, having for its professed object a strong 
and united effort of the five powers to put an end to the traffic. 
This treaty was not officially communicated to the govern- 
ment of the United States, but its provisions and stipulations 
are supposed to be accurately known to the public. It is un- 
derstood to be not yet ratified on the part of France. 

No application or request has been made to this government 
to become party to this treaty; but the course it might take 
in regard to it has excited no small degree of attention and 
discussion in Europe, as the principle upon which it is founded, 
and the stipulations which it contains, have caused warm ani- 
madversions and great political excitement. 

In my message at the commencement of the present session 
of Congress, I endeavored to state the principles which this 
government supports respecting the right of search and the 
immunity of flags. Desirous of maintaining those principles 
fully, at the same time that existing obligations should be fulfill- 
ed, I have thought it most consistent with the honor and dig- 
nity of the country, that it should execute its own laws, and per- 
form its own obligations, by its own means and its own power. 
The examination or visitation of the merchant vessels of one na- 
tion by the cruisers of another, for any purpose, except those 
known and acknowledged by the law of nations, under what- 
ever restraints or regulations it may take place, may lead to 
dangerous results. It is far better, by other means, to super- 
sede any supposed necessity, or any motive, for such examina- 
tion or visit. Interference with a merchant vessel by an armed 
cruiser is always a delicate proceeding, apt to touch the point 
of national honor, as well as to affect the interests of individuals. 
It has been thought, therefore, expedient, not only in accord- 
ance with the stipulations of the Treaty of Ghent, but at the 
same time as removing all pretext on the part of others for vio- 
lating the immunities of the American flag upon the seas, as 



228 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

they exist and are defined by the law of nations, to enter into 
the articles now submitted to the Senate. 

The treaty which I now submit to you proposes no altera- 
tion, mitigation, or modification of the rules of the law of na- 
tions. It provides simply that each of the two governments 
shall maintain on the coast of Africa a sufficient squadron to 
enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and ob- 
ligations of the two countries for the suppression of the slave 
trade. 

Another consideration of great importance has recommended 
this mode of fulfilling the duties and obligations of the country. 
Our commerce along the western coast of Africa is extensive, 
and supposed to be increasing. There is reason to think that, 
in many cases, those engaged in it have met with interruptions 
and annoyances, caused by the jealousy and instigation of ri- 
vals engaged in the same trade. Many complaints on this sub- 
ject have reached the government. A respectable naval force 
on the coast is the natural resort and security against further 
occurrences of this kind. 

The surrender to justice of persons who, having committed 
high crimes, seek an asylum in the territories of a neighboring 
nation, would seem to be an act due to the cause of general 
justice, and properly belonging to the present state of civiliza- 
tion and intercourse. The British provinces of North Ameri- 
ca are separated from the states of the Union by a line of 
several thousand miles ; and along portions of this line the 
amount of population on either side is quite considerable, 
while the passage of the boundary is always easy. 

Offenders against the law, on the one side, transfer them- 
selves to the oth&r. Sometimes, with great difficulty, they are 
brought to justice, but very often they wholly escape. A con- 
sciousness of immunity, from the power of avoiding justice in 
this way, instigates the unprincipled and reckless to the com- 
mission of offenses ; and the peace and good neighborhood of 
the border are consequently often disturbed. 

In the case of offenders fleeing from Canada into the United 
States, the governors of states are often applied to for their 
surrender; and questions of a very embarrassing nature arise 
from these applications. It has been thought highly import- 
ant, therefore, to provide for the whole case by a proper treaty 
stipulation. The article on the subject in the proposed treaty 
is carefully confined to such offenses as all mankind agree to 
regard as heinous, and destructive of the security of life and 
property. In this careful and specific enumeration of crimes, 
the object has been to exclude all political offenses, or criminal 
charges, arising from wars or intestine commotions. Treason, 
misprision of treason, libels, desertion from military service, and 
other offenses of similar character, are excluded. 






DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 229 

And, lest some unforeseen inconvenience or unexpected abuse 
should arise from the stipulation, rendering its continuance, in 
the opinion of one or both of the parties, not longer desirable, 
it is left in the power of either to put an end to it at will. 

The destruction of the steam- boat Caroline at Schlosser, 
four or five years ago, occasioned no small degree of excite- 
ment at the time, and became the subject of correspondence 
between the two governments. That correspondence having 
been suspended for a considerable period, was renewed in the 
spring of the last year, but, no satisfactory result having been 
arrived at, it was thought proper, though the occurrence had 
ceased to be fresh and recent, not to omit attention to it on the 
present occasion. It has only been so far discussed, in the cor- 
respondence now submitted, as it was accomplished by a vio- 
lation of the territory of the United States. The letter of the 
British minister, while he attempts to justify that violation upon 
the ground of a pressing and overruling necessity, admitting, 
nevertheless, that, even if justifiable, an apology was due for it, 
and accompanying this acknowledgment with assurances of 
the sacred regard of his government for the inviolability of na- 
tional territory, has seemed to me sufficient to warrant forbear- 
ance from any further remonstrance against what took place, 
as an aggression on the soil and territory of the country. 

On the subject of the interference of the British authorities 
in the West Indies, a confident hope is entertained that the 
correspondence which has taken place, showing the grounds 
taken by this government, and the engagements entered into 
by the British minister, will be found such as to satisfy the 
just expectation of the people of the United States. 

The impressment of seamen from merchant vessels of this 
country by British cruisers, although not practiced in time of 
peace, and, therefore, not at present a productive cause of dif- 
ference and irritation, has, nevertheless, hitherto been so prom* 
inent a topic of controversy, and is so likely to bring on re- 
newed contentions at the first breaking out of an European 
war, that it has been thought the part of wisdom now to take 
it into serious and earnest consideration. The letter from the 
Secretary of State to the British minister explains the grounds 
which the government has assumed, and the principles which 
it means to uphold. For the defense of these grounds, and the 
maintenance of these principles, the most perfect reliance is 
placed on the intelligence of the American people, and on their 
firmness and patriotism, in whatever touches the honor of the 
country, or its great and essential interest. 

John Tyler. 

Washington - , August 11, 1812. 



230 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 



BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 

[a proclamation.] 

Whereas, a treaty between the United States of America and 
her majesty, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Ireland, was concluded and signed by their plen- 
ipotentiaries, at Washington, on the ninth day of August, 
one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, which treaty is, 
word for word, as follows : 

A Treaty to settle and define the Boundaries between the Territo- 
ries of the United States and the Possessions of her Britannic 
Majesty in North America : For the final Suppression of the 
African Slave Trade ; and for the giving up of Criminals^ 
fugitive from Justice, in certain Cases. 

Whereas, certain portions of the line of boundary between 
the United States of America and the British dominions in 
North America, described in the second article of the Treaty 
of Peace of 1783, have not yet been ascertained and determ- 
ined, notwithstanding the repeated attempts which have been 
heretofore made for that purpose ; and whereas, it is now 
thought to be for the interest of both parties that, avoiding 
further discussion of their respective rights arising in this re- 
spect under the said treaty, they should agree on a convention- 
al line in said portions of the said boundary, such as may be 
convenient to both parties, with such equivalents and com- 
pensations as are deemed just and reasonable ; and whereas, 
by the treaty concluded at Ghent, on the 24th day of Decem- 
ber, 1814, between the United States and his Britannic majes- 
ty, an article was agreed to and inserted, of the following tenor, 
viz.: "Article 10. Whereas the traffic in slaves is irrecon- 
cilable with the principles of humanity and justice ; and 
whereas, both his majesty and the United States are desirous 
of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is 
hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their 
best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object ;" and 
whereas, notwithstanding the laws which have at various times 
been passed by the two governments, and the efforts made to 
suppress it, that criminal traffic is still prosecuted and carried 
on ; and whereas, the United States of America and her majesty, 
the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, 
are determined that, so far as may be in their power, it shall 
be effectually abolished ; and whereas, it is found expedient 
for the better administration of justice, and the prevention of 
crime within the territories and jurisdiction of the two parties, 
respectively, that persons committing the crimes hereinafter 
enumerated, and being fugitives from justice, should, under 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 231 

certain circumstances, be reciprocally delivered up : the Unit- 
ed States of America and her Britannic majesty, having re- 
solved to treat on these several subjects, have for that pur- 
pose appointed their respective plenipotentiaries to negotiate 
and conclude a treaty ; that is to say : the President of the 
United States has, on his part, furnished with full powers Dan- 
iel Webster, Secretary of State of the United States ; and her 
majesty, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Ireland, has, on her part, appointed the Right Honorable 
Alexander Lord Ashburton, a peer of the said United King- 
dom, a member of her majesty's most honorable privy counsel, 
and her majesty's minister plenipotentiary on a special mission 
to the United States, who, after a reciprocal communication of 
their respective full powers, have agreed to and signed the fol- 
lowing articles : 

Article I. 

It is hereby agreed and declared that the line of boundary 
shall be as follows : Beginning at the monument at the source 
of the River St. Croix, as designated and agreed to by the 
commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty of 1794, 
between the governments of the United States and Great Brit- 
ian ; thence north, following the exploring line run and marked 
by the surveyors of the two governments in the years 1817 
and 1818, under the fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent, to its 
intersection with the River St. John, and to the middle of the 
channel thereof; thence up the middle of the main channel of 
the said River St. John to the mouth of the River St. Francis ; 
thence up the middle of the channel of the said River St. 
Francis, and of the lakes through which it flows, to the outlet of 
the Lake Pohenagamook ; thence, southwesterly, in a straight 
line to a point on the northwest branch of the River St. John, 
which point shall be ten miles distant from the main branch of 
the St. John, in a straight line, and in the nearest direction ; but 
if the said point shall be found to be less than seven miles 
from the nearest point of the summit, or crest, of the Highlands 
that divide those rivers which empty themselves into the Riv- 
er St. Lawrence from those which fall into the River St. John, 
then the said point shall be made to recede down the said 
northwest branch of the River St. John, to a point seven miles 
in a straight line from the said summit or crest; thence in a 
straight line, in a course about south, eight degrees west, to 
the point where the parallel of latitude of 46 degrees 25 min- 
utes north intersects the southwest branch of the St. John's ; 
thence, southerly, by the said branch, to the source thereof in 
the Highlands, at the Metjarmette Portage ; thence down 
along the said Highlands which divide the waters which emp- 



232 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

ty themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those which 
fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the head of Hall's Stream ; 
thence down the middle of said stream, till the line thus run 
intersects the only line of boundary surveyed and marked by 
Valentine and Collins previously to the year 1774, as the 45th 
degree of north latitude, and which has been known and un- 
derstood to be the line of actual division between the States of 
New York and Vermont on one side, and the British province 
of Canada on the other ; and from said point of intersection, 
west, along the said dividing-line, as heretofore known and 
understood, to the Iroquois or St. Lawrence River. 

Article II. 

It is, moreover, agreed that from the place where the joint 
commissioners terminated their labors under the sixth article 
of the Treaty of Ghent, to wit : at a point in the Neebish 
Channel, near Muddy Lake, the line shall run into and along 
the ship-channel between St. Joseph's and St. Tammany Isl- 
ands, to the division of the channel at or near the head of St. 
Joseph's Island ; thence, turning eastwardly and northwardly, 
around the lower end of St. George's or Sugar Island, and fol- 
lowing the middle of the channel which divides St. George's 
from St. Joseph's Island ; thence up the east Neebish Channel, 
nearest to St. George's Island, through the middle of Lake 
George ; thence, west of Jonas's Island, into St. Mary's River, 
to a point in the middle of that river, about one mile above St. 
George's or Sugar Island, so as to appropriate and assign the 
said island to the United States ; thence, adopting the line 
traced on the maps by the commissioners, through the River 
St. Mary and Lake Superior, to a point north of He Royale, 
in said lake, one hundred yards to the north and east of He 
Chapeau, which last-mentioned island lies near the northeast- 
ern point of He Royale, where the line marked by the com- 
missioners terminates ; and from the last-mentioned point, 
southwesterly, through the middle of the sound between He 
Royale and the northwestern main-land, to the mouth of Pig- 
eon River, and up the said river to and through the North and 
South Fowl Lakes, to the lakes of the height of land between 
Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods ; thence along the 
water communication to Lake Saisaginaga, and through that 
lake ; thence to and through Cypress Lake, Lac du Bois 
Blanc, Lac la Croix, Little Vermilion Lake, and Lake Nam- 
ecan, and through the several smaller lakes, straits, or streams 
connecting the lakes here mentioned, to that point in Lac la 
Pluie, or Rainy Lake, at the Chaudiere Falls, from which the 
commissioners traced the line to the most northwestern point 
of the Lake of the Woods ; thence along the said line to the 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 233 

said most northwestern point, being in latitude 49 degrees, 23 
minutes, 55 seconds north, and in longitude 95 degrees, 14 
minute, 38 seconds west from the observatory at Greenwich ; 
thence, according to existing treaties, due south, to its inter- 
section with the 49th parallel of north latitude, and along that 
parallel to the Rocky Mountains ; it being understood that all 
the water communications, and all the usual portages along 
the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods, and 
also Grand Portage, from the shore of Lake Superior to the 
Pigeon River, as now actually used, shall be free and open to 
the use of the citizens and subjects of both countries. 

Article III. 

In order to promote the interests and encourage the indus- 
try of all the inhabitants of the countries watered by the River 
St. John and its tributaries, whether living within the State 
of Maine or the province of New Brunswick, it is agreed that 
where, by the provisions of the present treaty, the River St. 
John is declared to be the line of boundary, the navigation 
of the said river shall be free and open to both parties, and 
shall in no way be obstructed by either ; that all the produce 
of the forest in logs, lumber, timber, boards, staves, or shingles, 
or of agriculture, not being manufactured, grown on any of 
those parts of the State of Maine watered by the River St. 
John, or by its tributaries, of which fact reasonable evidence 
shall, if required, be produced, shall have free access into and 
through the said river and its said tributaries, having their 
source within the State of Maine, to and from the sea-port at 
the mouth of the said River St. John, and to and round the 
falls of the said river, either by boats, rafts, or other convey- 
ance ; that when within the province of New Brunswick, the 
said produce shall be dealt with as if it were the produce of the 
said province ; that in like manner the inhabitants of the terri- 
tory of the Upper St. John, determined by this treaty to be- 
long to her Britannic majesty, shall have free access to and 
through the river for their produce, in those parts where the 
.said river runs wholly through the State of Maine: Provided 
always, That this agreement shall give no right to either party 
to interfere with any regulations not inconsistent with the terms 
of this treaty which the governments* respectively, of Maine or 
of New Brunswick may make respecting the navigation of the 
said river, where both banks thereof shall belong to the same 
party. 

Article IV. 

All grants of lands heretofore made by either party, within 
the limits of the territory which by this treaty falls within the 



234 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

dominions of the other party, shall be held valid, ratified, and 
confirmed to the persons in possession under such grants, to 
the same extent as if such territory had by this treaty fallen 
within the dominions of the party by whom such grants were 
made: and all equitable possessory claims, arising from a pos- 
session and improvement of any lot or parcel of land by the 
person actually in possession, or by those under whom such 
person claims, for more than six years before the date of this 
treaty, shall, in like manner, be deemed valid, and be confirm- 
ed and quieted by a release to the person entitled thereto, of 
the title to such lot or parcel of land, so described as best to 
include the improvements made thereon ; and in all other re- 
spects the two contracting parties agree to deal upon the most 
liberal principles of equity with the settlers actually dwelling 
upon the territory falling to them, respectively, which has here- 
tofore been in dispute between them. 

Article V. 

Whereas, in the course of the controversy respecting the 
disputed territory on the northeastern boundary, some moneys 
have been received by the authorities of her Britannic majes- 
ty's province of New Brunswick, with the intention of pre- 
venting depredations on the forests of the said territory, which 
moneys were to be carried to a fund, called the " Disputed Ter- 
ritory Fund," the proceeds whereof, it was agreed, should be 
hereafter paid over to the parties interested, in the proportions 
to be determined by a final settlement of boundaries : it is 
hereby agreed, that a correct account of all receipts and pay- 
ments on the said fund shall be delivered to the government 
of the United States, within six months after the ratification of 
this treaty ; and the proportion of the amount due thereon to 
the States of Maine and Massachusetts, and any bonds or se- 
curities appertaining thereto, shall be paid and delivered over 
to the government of the United States ; and the government 
of the United States agrees to receive for the use of, and pay 
over to, the States of Maine and Massachusetts, their respective 
portions of said fund ; and further, to pay and satisfy said 
states, respectively, for all claims for expenses incurred by 
them in protecting the said heretofore disputed territory, and 
making a survey thereof in 1838 ; the government of the 
United States agreeing with the States of Maine and Massa- 
chusetts to pay them the further sum of three hundred thousand 
dollars, in equal moieties, on account of their assent to the line 
of boundary described in this treaty, and in consideration of 
the conditions and equivalents received therefor, from the gov- 
ernment of her Britannic majesty. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 235 

Article VI. 

It is furthermore understood and agreed, that for the pur- 
pose of running and tracing those parts of the line between the 
source of the St. Croix and the St. Lawrence River, which will 
require to be run and ascertained, and for marking the residue 
of said line by proper monuments on the land, two commis- 
sioners shall be appointed, one by the President of the United 
States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate there- 
of, and one by her Britannic majesty ; and the said commis- 
sioners shall meet at Bangor, in the State of Maine, on the first 
day of May next, or as soon thereafter as may be, and shall 
proceed to mark the line above described, from the source of 
the St. Croix to the River St. John ; and shall trace on proper 
maps the dividing line along said river, and along the River 
St. Francis, to the outlet of the Lake Pohenagamook; and from 
the outlet of the said lake they shall ascertain, fix, and mark, 
by proper and durable monuments on the land, the line de- 
scribed in the first article of this treaty; and the said commis- 
sioners shall make to each of their respective governments a 
joint report or declaration, under their hands and seals, desig- 
nating such line of boundary, and shall accompany such report 
or declaration with maps certified by them to be true maps of 
the new boundary. 

Article VII. 

It is further agreed, that the channels in the River St. Law- 
rence, on both sides of the Long Sault Islands, and of Barn- 
hart Island; the channels in the River Detroit, on both sides 
of the Island Bois Blanc, and between that island and both 
the American and Canadian shores ; and all the several chan- 
nels and passages between the various islands lying near the 
junction of the River St. Clair, with the lake of that name, shall 
be equally free and open to the ships, vessels, and boats of both 
parties. 

Article VIII. 
The parties mutually stipulate that each shall prepare, equip, 
and maintain in service, on the coast of Africa, a sufficient and 
adequate squadron, or naval force of vessels, of suitable num- 
bers and descriptions, to carry in all not less than eighty guns, 
to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and 
obligations of each of the two countries, for the suppression of 
the slave trade ; the said squadrons to be independent of each 
other, but the two governments stipulating, nevertheless, to 
give such orders to the officers commanding their respective 
forces, as shall enable them most effectually to act in concert 



236 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

and co-operation, upon mutual consultation, as exigencies may 
arise, for the attainment of the true object of this article ; cop- 
ies of all such orders to be communicated by each government 
to the other, respectively. 

Article IX. 

Whereas, notwithstanding all efforts which may be made 
on the coast of Africa for suppressing the slave trade, the fa- 
cilities for carrying on that traffic and avoiding the vigilance 
of cruisers by the fraudulent use of flags, and other means, are 
so great, and the temptations for pursuing it, while a market 
can be found for slaves, so strong, as that the desired result 
may be long delayed, unless all markets be shut against the 
purchase of African negroes, the parties to this treaty agree 
that they will unite in all becoming representations and remon- 
strances with any and all powers within whose dominions such 
markets are allowed to exist ; and that they will urge upon all 
such powers the propriety and duty of closing such markets 
effectually, at once and forever. 

Article X. 

It is agreed that the United States and her Britannic majes- 
ty shall, upon mutual requisitions by them, or their ministers, of- 
ficers, or authorities, respectively made, deliver up to justice all 
persons who, being charged with the crime of murder, or as- 
sault with intent to commit murder, or piracy, or arson, or rob- 
bery, or forgery, or the utterance of forged papers, committed 
within the jurisdiction of either, shall seek an asylum, or shall 
be found, within the territories of the other : provided, that this 
shall only be done upon such evidence of criminality as, ac- 
cording to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person 
so charged shall be found, would justify his apprehension and 
commitment for trial, if the crime or offense had there been 
committed ; and the respective judges and other magistrates 
of the two governments shall have power, jurisdiction, and au- 
thority, upon complaint made under oath, to issue a warrant 
for the apprehension of the fugitive or person so charged, that 
he may be brought before such judges or other magistrates, 
respectively, to the end that the evidence of criminality may 
be heard and considered ; and if, on such hearing, the evi- 
dence be deemed sufficient to sustain the charge, it shall be the 
duty of the examining judge or magistrate to certify the same 
to the proper executive authority, that a warrant may issue for 
the surrender of such fugitive. The expense of such appre- 
hension and delivery shall be borne and defrayed by the party 
who makes the requisition and receives the fugitive. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 237 

Article XL 

The eighth article of this treaty shall be in force for five 
years from the date of the exchange of the ratifications, and 
afterward until one or the other party shall signify a wish to 
terminate it. The tenth article shall continue in force until 
one or the other of the parties shall signify its wish to termin- 
ate it, and no longer. 

Article XII. 

The present treaty shall be duly ratified, and the mutual ex- 
change of ratifications shall take place in London, within six 
months from the date hereof, or earlier, if possible. 

In faith whereof, we, the respective plenipotentiaries, have 
signed this treaty, and have hereunto affixed our seals. 

Done, in duplicate, at Washington, the ninth day of August, 
anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and forty-two. 

Danl. Webster, [seal.] 

AsHBURTON. [SEAL.] 

And, whereas, the said treaty has been duly ratified on both 
parts, and the respective ratifications of the same having been 
exchanged, to wit, at London, on the thirteenth day of Octo- 
ber, one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, by Edward 
Everett, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary 
of the United States, and the Right Honorable the Earl of Ab- 
erdeen, her Britannic majesty's principal Secretary of State 
for Foreign Affairs, on the part of their respective govern- 
ments : 

Now, therefore, be it known, that I, John Tyler, President 
of the United States of America, have caused the said treaty 
to be made public, to the end that the same, and every clause 
and article thereof, may be observed and fulfilled with good 
faith by the United States and the citizens thereof. In witness 
whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused 
[L. fe.J the geal of the Tj n i t ed States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this tenth day of November, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty- 
two, and of the Independence of the United States the sixty- 
seventh. John Tyler. 

By the President : 
Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 



238 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 



VOTE OF THE SENATE ON THE FINAL QUESTION 
OF RATIFICATION, &c. 

The treaty having been communicated to the Senate by the 
President of the United States, by message of the 11th of Au- 
gust, 1842, was referred, on motion of Mr. Rives, to the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Relations, of which committee Mr. Rives was 
chairman ; it was reported from the committee without amend- 
ment on Monday, the 15th of August, and made the order of the 
day for Wednesday, the 17th, on which last day it was called up 
and discussed, as well as on the 19th and 20th. Several propo- 
sitions to amend having been made and rejected, Mr. Rives, on 
the day last mentioned, submitted the following resolution : 

Resolved (two thirds of the senators present concurring), 
That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the 
treaty to settle and define the boundaries between the territo- 
ries of the United States and the possessions of her Britannic 
majesty in North America ; for the final suppression of the Af- 
rican slave trade ; and for the giving up of criminals fugitive 
from justice, in certain cases. 

The Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to consider 
the said resolution. On the question to agree thereto, it was 
determined in the affirmative, Yeas 39, Nays 9. 

Those who voted in the affirmative are, Messrs Archer, Bar- 
row, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Calhoun, Choate. Clayton, Crafts, 
Crittenden, Cuthbert, Dayton, Evans, Fulton, Graham, Hender- 
son, Huntington, Kerr, King, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, More- 
head, Phelps, Porter, Preston, Rives, Sevier, Simmons, Smith of 
Indiana, Sprague, Tallmadge, Tappan, Walker, White, W'ood- 
bridge, Woodbury, Wright, Young. 

Those who voted in the negative are, Messrs. Allen, Bagby, 
Benton, Buchanan, Conrad, Linn, Smith of Connecticut, Stur- 
geon, Williams. 

So the said resolution was agreed to. 

Ordered, That the Secretary lay the said resolution before 
the President of the United States. 

The bill for carrying into effect the Treaty of Washington 
passed the House of Representatives on the 28th of February, 
1843, by a vote of 137 Yeas to 40 Nays, and the Senate on the 
2d of March, without a division, having been reported from the 
Committee on Foreign Relations by Mr. Archer, then chairman 
of that committee, without amendment. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 239 



MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE 
UNITED STATES, APRIL, 1846, IN VINDICATION 
OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON OF 1842. 

It is altogether unexpected to me, Mr. President, to find it 
to be my duty here, and at this time, to defend the Treaty of 
Washington of 1842, and the correspondence accompanying 
the negotiation of that treaty. It is a past transaction. Four 
years have almost elapsed since the treaty received the sanc- 
tion of the Senate and became the law of the land. While 
before the Senate, it was discussed with much earnestness and 
very great ability. For its ratification, it received the votes 
of five sixths of the whole Senate : a greater majority, I be- 
lieve I may say, than was ever before found for any disputed 
treaty. From that day to this, although I had had a hand in the 
negotiation of the treaty, and felt it to be a transaction with 
which my own reputation was intimately connected, I have 
been willing to leave it to the judgment of the country. There 
were, it is true, sir, some things of which I have not complain- 
ed, and do not complain, but which, nevertheless, were sub- 
jects of regret. The papers accompanying the treaty were vo- 
luminous. Their publication was long delayed, waiting for 
the exchange of ratifications ; and, when finally published, they 
were not distributed to any great extent, or in large numbers. 
The treaty, meantime, got before the public surreptitiously, 
and, with the documents, came out by piece-meal. We know 
that it is unhappily true that, away from the large commercial 
cities of the Atlantic coast, there are few of the public prints 
of the country which publish official papers on such an occa- 
sion, at large. I might have felt a natural desire that the treaty 
and the correspondence could have been known and read by 
every one of my fellow-citizens, from east to west, and from 
north to south. Indeed, I did feel such desire. But it was im- 
possible. Nevertheless, in returning to the Senate again, noth- 
ing was further from my purpose than to renew the discussion 
of any of the topics discussed and settled at that time ; and 
nothing further from my expectation than to be called upon, by 
any sense of duty to my own reputation and to truth, to make, 
now, any observations upon the treaty or the correspondence. 
But it has so happened that, in the debate on the Oregon 
question, the treaty, and, I believe, every article of it, and the 
correspondence accompanying the negotiation of that treaty, 
and, I believe, every part of that correspondence, have been the 
subject of disparaging, disapproving, sometimes contumelious 



240 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

remarks, in one or the other of the houses of Congress. Now, 
with all my indisposition to revive past transactions and make 
them the topics of debate here, and satisfied, and, indeed, highly 
gratified with the approbation so very generally expressed by 
the country, at the time and ever since, I suppose that it could 
hardly have been expected, nevertheless, by any body, that I 
should sit here from day to day, through the debate, and through 
the session, hearing statements entirely errroneous as to matters 
of fact, and deductions from these supposed facts quite as erro- 
neous, all tending to produce unfavorable impressions respect- 
ing the treaty, and the correspondence, and every body who 
had a hand in it: I say, it could hardly have been expected by 
any one that I should sit here and hear all this, and keep my 
peace. The country knows that I am here. It knows what I 
have heard, again and again, from day to day ; and if state- 
ments of fact, wholly incorrect, are made here, in my hearing 
and in my presence, without reply or answer from me, why,' 
shall we not hear in all the contests of party and elections here- 
after, that this is a fact, and that is a fact, because it has been 
stated where and when an answer could be given, or a denial 
made, and no answer was given, and no denial made 1 It is my 
purpose, therefore, to give an answer here, and now, to what- 
ever has been alleged against the treaty or the correspondence. 
Mr. President, in the negotiation of 1842, and in the corre- 
spondence, I acted as Secretary of State, under the direction, 
of course, of the President of the United States. But, sir, in 
matters of high importance, I shrink not from the responsibil- 
ity of any thing I have ever done, under any man's direction. 
Wherever my name stands I am ready to answer to it, and 
to defend that with which it is connected. I am here to-day 
to take upon myself, without disrespect to the chief magis- 
trate under whose direction I acted, and for the purposes of 
this discussion, the whole responsibility of every thing that has 
my name connected with it in the negotiation and correspond- 
ence. Sir, the Treaty of Washington was not entered into to 
settle any — or altogether for the purpose of settling any — new 
arising questions. The matters embraced in that treaty, and 
in the correspondence accompanying it, had been interesting 
subjects in our foreign relations for fifty years — unsettled for 
fifty years — agitating and annoying the councils of the coun- 
try, and threatening to disturb its peace, for fifty years. And 
my first duty, then, in entering upon such remarks as I think 
the occasion calls for in regard to one and all of these topics, 
will be to treat the subjects, in the first place, historically ; to 
show when each arose ; what has been its progress in the dip- 
lomatic history of the country ; and especially to show in what 
posture each of those important subjects stood at the time 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 241 

when William Henry Harrison acceded to the office of Presi- 
dent of the United States. This is my purpose. I do not in- 
tend to enter upon any crimination of gentlemen who have 
filled important situations in the executive government in the 
earlier, or in the more recent, history of the country ; but I 
intend to show, in the progress of this discussion, the actual 
position in which things were left in regard to the topics em- 
braced by the treaty, and the correspondence attending the ne- 
gotiation of it, when the executive government devolved upon 
General Harrison, and his immediate successor, Mr. Tyler. 

Now, sir, the first of these topics is the question of the north- 
eastern boundary of the United States. The general history 
of that question, from the peace of 1783 to this time, is known 
to all public men, of course, and pretty well understood by the 
great mass of well-informed persons throughout the country. 
I shall state it briefly. 

In the Treaty of Peace of September, 1783, the northern 
and eastern, or, perhaps, more properly speaking, the north- 
eastern boundary of the United States, is thus described, viz. : 

" From the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that angle which is formed by 
a line drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix River to the Highlands ; 
along the said Highlands, which divide those rivers that empty themselves into 
the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwest- 
ernmost head of Connecticut River ; thence along the middle of that river to the 
forty-fifth degree of north latitude ; from thence, by a line due west on said lati- 
tude, until it strikes the River Iroquois or Cataraquy ; east by a line to be drawn 
along the middle of the River St. Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy, to 
its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid Highlands." 

Such is the description of the northeastern boundary of the 
United States, according to the Treaty of Peace of 1783. And 
it is quite remarkable that so many embarrassing questions 
should have arisen from these few lines, and have been matters 
of controversy for more than half a century. 

The first disputed question was, " Which, of the several riv- 
ers running into the Bay of Fundy, is the St. Croix, mentioned 
in the treaty?" It is singular that this should be matter of dis- 
pute, but so it was. England insisted the true St. Croix was 
one river ; the United States insisted it was another. 

The second controverted question was, " Where is the north- 
west angle of Nova Scotia to be found ?" 

The third," What and where are the Highlands, along which 
the line is to run, from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia to 
the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River?" 

The fourth, "Of the several streams which, flowing togeth- 
er, make up Connecticut River, which is that stream which 
ought to be regarded as its northwesternmost head?" 

the fifth was, " Are the rivers which discharge their waters 
into the Bay of Fundy, rivers 'which fall into the Atlantic 
Ocean,' in the sense of the terms used in the treaty V 

Q 



242 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

The 5th article of the treaty between the United States and 
Great Britain, of the 19th of November, 1794, after reciting 
that " doubts had arisen what river was truly intended under 
the name of the River St. Croix," proceeded to provide for the 
decision of that question by three commissioners, one to be ap- 
pointed by each government, and these two to choose a third; 
or, if they could not agree, then each to make his nomination, 
and decide the choice by lot. The two commissioners agreed 
on a third ; the three executed the duty assigned them, decided 
what river was the true St. Croix, traced it to its source, and 
there established a monument. So much, then, on the eastern 
line was settled ; and all the other questions remained wholly 
unsettled down to the year 1842. 

But the two governments continued to pursue the important 
and necessary purpose of adjusting boundary difficulties ; and 
a convention was negotiated in London by Mr. Rufus King 
and Lord Hawkesbury, and signed on the 12th day of May, 
1803, by the 2d and 3d articles of which it was agreed that 
a commission should be appointed, in the same manner as that 
provided for under the treaty of 1794, to wit : one commission- 
er to be appointed by England, and one by the United States, 
and these two to make choice of a third ; or, if they could not 
agree, each to name the person he proposed, and the choice to 
be decided by lot ; this third commissioner, whether appointed 
by choice or by lot, would, of course, be umpire or ultimate 
arbiter. 

Governments at that day, in disputes concerning territorial 
boundaries, did not set out each with the declaration that the 
whole of its own claim was clear and indisputable ; whatever 
was seriously disputed they regarded as in some degree, at 
least, doubtful or disputable ; and when they could not agree, 
they saw no indignity or impropriety in referring the dispute 
to arbitration, even though the arbitrator were to be appointed 
by chance, between respectable persons, named severally by 
the parties. 

The commission thus constituted was authorized to ascertain 
and determine the northwest amHe of Nova Scotia; to run and 
mark the line from the monument, at the source of St. Croix, to 
that northwest angle of Nova Scotia ; and also to determine 
the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River; and then to 
run and mark the boundary line between the northwest angle 
of Nova Scotia and the said northwesternmost head of Con- 
necticut River ; and the decision and proceedings of the said 
commissioners, or a majority of them, was to be final and con- 
clusive. 

No objection was made by either government to this agree- 
ment and stipulation ; but an incident arose to prevent the final 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 243 

ratification of this treaty, and it arose in this way. Its fifth ar- 
ticle contained an agreement between the parties settling the 
line of boundary between them beyond the Lake of the Woods. 
In coming to this agreement, they proceeded exclusively on 
the grounds of their respective rights under the treaty of 1783; 
but it so happened that, twelve days before the convention was 
signed in London, France, by a treaty signed in Paris, had ced- 
ed Louisiana to the United States. This cession was at once 
regarded as giving to the United States new rights, or new 
limits, in this part of the Continent. The Senate, therefore, 
struck this 5th article out of the convention ; and, as England 
did not incline to agree to this alteration, the whole convention 
fell. 

Here, sir, the whole matter rested till it was revived by the 
Treaty of Ghent, in the year 1814. And by the 5th article of 
that treaty it was provided, that each party should appoint a 
commissioner, and those two should have power to ascertain 
and determine the boundary line, from the source of the St. 
Croix to the St. Lawrence River, according to the treaty o f 
1783; and if these commissioners could not agree, they were 
to state their grounds of difference, and the subject was to be 
referred to the arbitration of some friendly sovereign or state, 
to be afterward agreed upon by the two governments. The 
two commissioners examined the boundary, explored the coun- 
try, but could not agree. 

In the year 1823, under the administration of Mr. Monroe, 
negotiations were commenced with a view of agreeing on an 
arbitration, and these negotiations terminated in a convention, 
which was signed in London, on the 29th of September, 1827, in 
the administration of Mr. Adams. By this time, collisions had 
already begun on the borders, notwithstanding it had been un- 
derstood that neither party should exercise exclusive posses- 
sion pending the negotiation. Mr. Adams, in his message of 
December 8, 1827, after stating the conclusion of the conven- 
tion for arbitration, adds: 

" While these conventions have been pending, incidents have occurred of con- 
flicting pretensions, and of a dangerous character, upon the territory itself in dis- 
pute between the two nations. By a common understanding between the gov- 
ernments, it was agreed that no exercise of exclusive jurisdiction by either party, 
while the negotiaton was pending, should change the state of the question of right 
to be definitely settled. Such collision has, nevertheless, recently taken place 
by occurrences the precise character of which has not yet beeu ascertained." 

The King of the Netherlands was appointed arbitrator, and 
he made his award on the 10th of January, 1831. This award 
was satisfactory to neither party ; it was rejected by both, arid 
so the whole matter was thrown back upon its original condi- 
tion. 

This happened in the first term of General Jackson's admin- 



244 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

istration. He immediately addressed himself, of course, to new 
efforts for the adjustment of the controversy. His energy and 
diligence have both been much commended by his friends; and 
they have not been disparaged by his opponents. He called 
to his aid, in the Department of State, successively, Mr. Van 
Buren, Mr. Livingston, Mr. M'Lane, and Mr. Forsyth. 

Now, Mr. President, let us see what progress General Jack- 
son made, with the assistance of these able and skillful negoti- 
ators, in this highly important business. Why, sir, the whole 
story is told by reference to his several annual messages. In 
his fourth annual message, December, 1832, he says: "The 
question of our norteasthern boundary still remains unsettled." 
In December, 1833, he says : " The interesting question of our 
northeastern boundary remains still undecided. A negotiation, 
however, upon that subject has been renewed since the close 
of the last Congress." In December, 1834, he says : " The 
question of the northeastern boundary is still pending with 
Great Britain, and the proposition made in accordance with 
the resolution of the Senate, for the establishment of a line ac- 
cording to the treaty of 1783, has not been accepted by that 
government. Believing that every disposition is felt on both 
sides to adjust this perplexing question to the satisfaction of all 
the parties interested in it, the hope is yet indulged that it may 
be effected on the basis of that proposition." In December, 
1835, a similar story is rehearsed: "In the settlement of the 
question of the northeastern boundary," says President Jack- 
son, "little progress has been made. Great Britain has de- 
clined acceding to the proposition of the United States, pre- 
sented in accordance with the resolution of the Senate, unless 
certain preliminary conditions are admitted, which I deemed 
incompatible with a satisfactory and rightful adjustment of the 
controversy." And in his last message, the President gives an 
account of all his efforts, and all his success, in regard to this 
most important point in our foreign relations, in these words : 
" I regret to say, that many questions of an interesting nature, 
at issue with other powers, are yet unadjusted ; among the 
most prominent of these is that of the northeastern boundary. 
With an undiminished confidence in the sincere desire of his 
Britannic majesty's government to adjust that question, I am 
not yet in possession of the precise grounds upon which it pro- 
poses a satisfactory adjustment." 

With all his confidence, so often repeated, in the sincere de- 
sire of England to adjust the dispute, with all the talents and 
industry of his successive cabinets, this question, admitted to 
be the most prominent of all those on which we were at issue 
with foreign powers, had not advanced one step since the re- 
jection of the Dutch award ; nor did General Jackson know the 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 245 

grounds upon which a satisfactory adjustment was to be ex- 
pected. All this is undeniably true ; and it was all admitted 
to be true by Mr. Van Buren when he came into office ; for, 
in his first annual message, he says : 

" Of pending questions the most important is that which exists with the govern- 
ment of Great Britain in respect to our northeastern boundary. It is with un- 
feigned regret that the people of the United States must look back upon the abor- 
tive efforts made by the executive for a period of more than half a century, to de- 
termine what no nation should suffer long to remain in dispute, the true line which 
divides its possessions from those of other powers. The nature ol the settlements 
on the borders of the United States, and of the neighboring territory, was for a 
season such, that this, perhaps, was not indispensable to a faithful performance of 
the duties of the Federal government. Time has, however, changed the state of 
things, and has brought about a condition of affairs in which the true interests of 
both countries imperatively recpiire that this question should be put at rest. It 
is not to be disguised that, with full confidence, often expressed in the desire of 
the British government to terminate it, we are apparently as far from its adjust- 
ment as we were at the time of signing the treaty of peace, 1783." 
"The conviction, which must be common to all, of the injurious consequences 
that result from keeping open this irritating question, and the certainty that its 
final settlement can not be much longer deferred, will, I trust, lead to an early 
and satisfactory adjustment. At your last session, I laid before you the recent 
communications between the two governments, and between this government and 
that of the State of Maine, in whose solicitude, concerning a subject in which she 
has so deep an interest, every portion of the Union participates." 

Now, sir, let us pause and consider this. Here we are, fifty- 
three years from the date of the Treaty of Peace, and the bound- 
aries not yet settled. General Jackson has tried his hand at 
the business for five years, and has done nothing. He can not 
make the thing move. And why not? Do he and his advis- 
ers want skill and energy, or are there difficulties in the nature 
of the case, not to be overcome till some wiser course of pro- 
ceeding shall be adopted ? Up to this time not one step of 
progress has been made. This is admitted, and is, indeed, un- 
deniable. 

Well, sir, Mr. Van Buren then began his administration un- 
der the deepest conviction of the importance of the question, in 
the fullest confidence in the sincerity of the British govern- 
ment, and with the consciousness that the solicitude of Maine 
concerning the subject was a solicitude in which every portion 
of the Union participated. 

And now, sir, what did he do ? What did he accomplish ? 
What progress did he make ? What step forward did he take 
in the whole course of his administration? Seeing the full im- 
portance of the subject, addressing himself to it, and not doubt- 
ing the just disposition of England, I ask again, what did he 
do ? What did he do ? What advance did he make ? Sir, 
not one step, in his whole four years. Or, rather, if he made 
any advance at all, it was an advance backward ; for, un- 
doubtedly, he left the question in a much worse state than he 
found it, not only on account of the disturbances and outbreaks 
which had taken place on the border, for the want of an adjust- 



246 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

merit, and which disturbances themselves had raised new and 
difficult questions, but on account of the intricacies, and com- 
plexities, and perplexities in which the correspondence had 
become involved. There was a mesh, an entanglement, which 
rendered it far more difficult to proceed with the subject than 
if the question had been fresh and unembarrassed. 

I must now ask the Senate to indulge me in something more 
of an extended and particular reference to proofs and papers 
than is in accordance with my general habits in debate ; be- 
cause I wish to present to the Senate, and to the country, the 
grounds of what I have just said. 

And let us follow the administration of Mr. Van Buren from 
his first message, and see how this important matter fares in 
his hands. 

On the 20th of March, 1838, he sent a message to the Senate, 
with a correspondence between Mr. Fox and Mr. Forsyth. In 
this correspondence Mr. Fox says: 

" The United States government have proposed two modes in which such a 
commission might be constituted : first, that it might consist of commissioners, 
named in equal numbers, by each of the two governments, with an umpire to be 
selected by some friendly European power. Secondly, that it might be entirely 
composed of scientific Europeans, to be selected by a friendly sovereign, and 
might be accompanied in its operations by agents of the two different parties, in 
ortfer that such agents might give to the commissioners assistance and information. 
* *°#°* * * * * 

"Her majesty's government have themselves already stated that they have lit- 
tle expectation that such a commission could lead to any useful result, and that 
they would on that account be disposed to object to it ; and if her majesty's gov- 
ernment were now to agree to- appoint such a commission, it would only be in 
compliance with the desire so strongly expressed by the government of the United 
States, and in spite of doubts, which her majesty's government still continue to en- 
tertain, of the efficacy of the measure." 

To this Mr. Forsyth replies, that he perceives, with feelings 
of deep disappointment, that the answer to the propositions of 
the United States is so indefinite, as to render it impracticable 
to ascertain, without further discussion, what are the real wish- 
es and intentions of her majesty's government. Here, then, a 
new discussion arises, to find out, if it can be found out, what 
the parties mean. Meantime Mr. Forsyth writes a letter, of 
twenty or thirty pages, to the Governor of Maine, concluding 
with a suggestion that his excellency should take measures to 
ascertain the sense of the State of Maine with respect to the 
expediency of a conventional line. This correspondence re- 
peats the proposition of a joint exploration by commissioners, 
and Mr. Fox accedes to it, in deference to the wishes of the 
United States, but with very little hope that any good will 
come of it. 

Here is the upshot of one whole year's work. Mr. Van Bu- 
ren sums it up thus, in his message of December, 1838: 

" With respect to the northeastern boundary of the United States, no official 
correspondence between this government and that of Great Britain has passed 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 247 

since that communicated to Congress toward the close of their last session. Tho 
offer to negotiate a convention for the appointment of a joint commission of sur- 
vey and exploration, I am, however, assured, will be met by her majesty's gov- 
ernment in a conciliatory and friendly spirit, and instructions to enable the Brit- 
ish minister here to conclude such an arrangement will be transmitted to him 
without needless delay." 

We may now look for instructions to Mr. Fox to conclude 
an arrangement for a joint commission of survey and explora- 
tion. Survey and exploration ! As if there had not already 
been enough of both! But thus terminates 1838, with a hope 
of coming to an agreement for a survey ! Great progress, this, 
surely ! 

And now we come to 1839; and what, sir, think you, was 
the product of diplomatic fertility and cultivation in the year 
1839 ? Sir, the harvest was one project and one counte?'-project. 

On the 20th of May Mr. Fox sent to Mr. Forsyth a draught 
of a convention for a joint exploration by commissioners, the 
commissioners to make report to their respective governments. 

This was the British project. 

On the 29th of July Mr. Forsyth sent to Mr. Fox a counter- 
project, embracing the principle of arbitration. By this, if the 
commissioners did not agree, a reference was to be had to three 
persons, selected by three friendly sovereigns or states ; and 
these arbitrators might order another survey. Here the par- 
ties, apparently fatigued with their efforts, paused ; and the la- 
bors of the year are thus rehearsed and recapitulated by Mr. 
Van Buren at the end of the season : 

" For the settlement of our northeastern boundary, the proposition promised by 
Great Britain for a commission of exploration and survey has been received, and 
a counter-project, including also a provision for the certain and final adjustment 
of the limits in dispute, is now before the British government for its considera- 
tion. A just regard to the delicate state of this question, and a proper respect for 
the natural impatience of the State of Maine, not less thau a conviction that the 
negotiation has been already protracted longer than is prudent on the part of 
either government, have led me to believe that the pi-esent favorable moment 
should, on no account, be suffered to pass without putting the question forever 
at rest. I feel confident that the government of her Britannic majesty will take 
the same view of the subject, as I am persuaded it is governed by desires equally 
strong and sincere for the amicable termination of the controversy." 

Here, sir, in this "delicate state of the question" all things 
rested till the next year. 

Early after the commencement of the warm weather, in 
1840, the industrious diplomatists resumed their severe and 
rigorous labors, and on the 22d of June, 1840, Mr. Fox writes 
thus to Mr. Forsyth: 

" The British government and the government of the United States agreed, two 
years ago, that a survey of the disputed territory by a joint commission would 
be the measure best calculated to elucidate and solve the question at issue. The 
President proposed such a commission, and her majesty's government consented 
to it; and it was believed by her majesty's government that the general princi : 
pies upon which the commission was to be guided in its local operations had been 
settled by mutual agreement, arrived at by means of a correspondence whi< hto • '■ 
place between the two governments in 1837 and 1838. Her majesty's govern- 



248 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL TAPERS. 

ment accordingly transmitted, in April of last year, for the consideration of the 
President, a draught of the convention, to regulate the proceedings of the pro- 
posed convention." 

" The preamble of that draught recited, textually, the agreement that had been 
come to by means of notes which had been exchanged between the two govern- 
ments; and the articles of the draught were framed, as her majesty's government 
considered, in strict conformity with that agreement. 

" But the government of the United States did not think proper to assent to the 
convention so proposed. 

" The United States government did not, indeed, allege that the proposed con- 
vention was at variance with the result of the previous correspondence between 
the two governments; but it thought that the convention would establish a com- 
mission of 'mere exploration and survey;' and the President was of opinion that 
the step next to be taken by the two governments should be to contract stipula- 
tions, bearing upon the face of them the promise of a final settlement, under some 
form or other, and within a reasonable time. 

" The United States government accordingly transmitted to the undersigned, 
for communication to her majesty's government, in the month of July last, a coun- 
ter-draught of convention, varying considerably in some parts (as the Secretary 
of State of the United States admitted in his letter to the undersigned of the 29th 

of July last) from the draught proposed by Great Britain." 

# * # * * # * * 

" There was, undoubtedly, one essential difference between the British draught 
and the American counter-draught. 

" The British draught contained no provision embodying the principle of arbi- 
tration. The American counter-draught did contain such a provision. 

" The British draught contained no provision for arbitration, because the prin- 
ciple of arbitration had not been proposed on either side during the negotiations 
upon which that draught was founded ; and because, moreover, it was understood 
at that time that the principle of arbitration would be decidedly objected to by 
the United States. But a.s the United States government have now expressed a 
wish to embody the principle of arbitration in the proposed convention, her maj- 
esty's government are perfectly willing to accede to that wish. 

" The undersigned is accordingly instructed to state officially to Mr. Forsyth, 
that her majesty's government consent to the two principles which form the main 
foundation of the American counter-draught, namely : first, that the commission 
to be appointed shall be so constituted as necessarily to lead to a final settlement 
of the questions of boundary at issue between the two countries ; and, secondly, 
that, in order to secure such a result, the convention by which the commission 13 
to be created shall contain a provision for arbitration upon points as to which the 
British and American commission may not be able to agree. 

" The undersigned is, however, instructed to add, that there are many matters 
of detail in the American counter-draught which her majesty's government can 
not adopt. 

". The undersigned will be furnished from his government, by an early oppor- 
tunity, with an amended draught, in conformity with the principles above stated, 
to be submitted to the consideration of the President. And the undersigned ex- 
pects to be at the same time furnished with instructions to propose to the govern- 
ment of the United States a fresh, local, and temporary convention, for the better 
prevention of incidental border collisions within the disputed territory during 
the time that may be occupied in carrying through the operation of survey or ar- 
bitration." 

And on the 26th of June Mr. Forsyth replies, and says : 

" That he derives great satisfaction from the announcement that her majesty's 
government do not relinquish the hope that the sincere desire which is felt by 
both parties to arrive at an amicable settlement, will at length be attended with 
success ; and from the prospect held out by Mr. Fox of his being accordingly fur- 
nished, by an early opportunity, with the draught of a proposition amended in 
conformity with the principles to which her majesty's government has acceded, 
to be submitted to the consideration of this government." 

On the 28th of July, 1840, the British amended draught came. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 249 

This draught proposed that commissioners should be appointed, 
as before, to make exploration ; that umpires or arbitrators 
should be appointed by three friendly sovereigns, and that the 
arbitration should sit in Germany, at Frankfort-on-the-Maine. 
And the draught contains many articles of arrangement and 
detail for carrying the exploration and arbitration into effect. 

At the same' time, Mr. Fox sends to Mr. Forsyth the report 
of two British commissioners, Messrs. Mudge and Featherston- 
haugh, who had made an ex parte survey in 1839. And a 
most extraordinary report it was. These gentlemen had dis- 
covered that up to that time nobody had been right. They 
invented a new line of highland, cutting across the waters of 
the Aroostook, and other streams emptying into the St. John's, 
which, in all previous examinations and explorations, had es- 
caped all mortal eyes. 

Here, then, we had one project more for exploration and ar- 
bitration, together with a report from the British commission- 
ers of survey, placing the British claim where it had never been 
placed before. And on the 13th of August, there comes again, 
as matter of course, from Mr. Forsyth, another counter-project. 
Lord Palmerston is never richer in projects than Mr. Forsyth 
is in counter-projects. There is always a Roland for an Oli- 
ver. This counter-project of the 13th of August, 1840, was 
drawn in the retirement of Albany. It consists of 18 articles, 
which it is hardly necessary to describe particularly. Of 
course, it proceeds on the two principles already agreed on, 
of exploration and arbitration ; but in all matters of arrange- 
ment and detail, it was quite different from Lord Palmerston's 
draught, communicated by Mr. Fox. 

And here the rapid march of diplomacy came to a dead halt. 
Mr. Fox found so many, and such great changes proposed to 
the British draught, that he did not incline to discuss them. 
He did not believe the British government would ever agree to 
Mr. Forsyth's plan, but he would send it home, and see what 
could be done with it. 

Thus stood matters at the end of 1840, and in his message 
at the meeting of Congress in December of that year, his vale- 
idictory message. Mr. Van Buren thus describes that condition 
of things, which he found to be the result of his four years of 



negotiation. 



" In my last annual message you were informed that a proposition for a com- 
mission o"f exploration and survey, promised by Great Britain, had been received, 
and that a counter-project, including also a provision for the certain and final ad- 
justment of the limits in dispute, was then before the British governmeni for its 
consideration. The answer of that government, accompanied by additional prop. 
ositions of its own, was received through its minister here, since your separation. 
These were promptly considered ; such as were deemed correct in principle, and 
consistent with a due regard to the just rights of the United Stabs and of the 
State of Maine, concurred in; and the reasons for dissenting from the residue, 



250 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

with an additional suggestion on our part, communicated by the Secretary of State 
to Mr. Fox. That minister, not feeling himself sufficiently instructed upon some 
of the points raised in the discussion, felt it to be his duty to refer the matter to 
his own government for its further decision." 

And now, sir, who will deny that this is a very promising 
condition of things to exist fifty-seven years after the conclu- 
sion of the treaty ! 

Here is the British project for exploration ; then the Ameri- 
can counter-project for exploration, to be the foundation of ar- 
bitration. Next, the answer of Great Britain to our counter- 
project, stating divers exceptions and objections to it, and with 
sundry new and additional propositions of her own. Some of 
these were concurred in, but others dissented from, and other 
additional suggestions on our part were proposed ; and all these 
concurrences, dissents, and new suggestions were brought to- 
gether and incorporated into Mr. Forsyth's last labor of diplo- 
macy, at least his last labor in regard to this subject, his coun- 
ter-project of August the 13th, 1840. That counter-project 
was sent to England, to see what Lord Palmerston could make 
of it. It fared in the Foreign Office just as Mr. Fox had fore- 
told. Lord Palmerston would have nothing to do with it. He 
would not answer it ; he would not touch it ; he gave up the 
negotiation in apparent despair. Two years before, the parties 
had agreed on the principle of joint exploration, and the princi- 
ple of arbitration. But in their subsequent correspondence, on 
matters of detail, modes of proceeding, and subordinate ar- 
rangements, they had, through the whole two years, constantly 
receded further, and further, and further from each other. 
They were flying apart ; and, like two orbs, going oft* in oppo- 
site directions, could only meet after they should have travers- 
ed the whole circle. 

But this exposition of the case does not describe, by any 
means, all the difficulties and embarrassments arising from the 
unsettled state of the controversy. We all remember the troub- 
les of 1839. Something like a border war had broke out. 
Maine had raised an armed civil posse ; she fortified the line, 
or points on the line, of territory, to keep off intruders and to 
defend possession. There was Fort Fairfield, Fort Kent, and 
I know not what other fortresses, all memorable in history. 
The Legislature of Maine had placed eight hundred thousand 
dollars at the discretion of the governor, to be used for the mil- 
itary defense of the state. Major-general Scott had repaired 
to the frontier, and under his mediation an agreement, a sort 
of treaty, respecting the temporary possession of the two par- 
ties, of the territory in dispute, was entered into between the 
governors of Maine and New Brunswick. But as it could not 
be foreseen how long the principal dispute would be protracted, 
Mr. Fox, as has already been seen, wrote home for instructions 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 251 

for another treaty: a treaty of less dignity ; a collateral treaty ; 
a treaty to regulate the terms of possession, and the means of 
keeping the peace of the frontier, while the number of years 
should roll away, necessary, first, to spin out the whole thread 
of diplomacy in forming a convention; next, for three or four 
years of joint exploration of seven hundred miles of disputed 
boundary in the wilderness of North America; and, finally, to 
learn the results of an arbitration which was to sit at Frankfort- 
on-the-Maine, composed of learned doctors from the German 
universities. 

Really, sir, is not this a most delightful prospect? Is there 
not here as beautiful a labyrinth of diplomacy as one could wish 
to look at of a summer's day? Would not Castlereagh and 
Talleyrand, Nesselrode and Metternich, find it an entanglement 
worthy the labor of their own hands to unravel ? Is it not ap- 
parent, Mr. President, that at this time the settlement of the 
question, by this kind of diplomacy, if to be reached by any vi- 
sion, required telescopic sight? The country was settling ; in- 
dividual rights were getting into collision ; it was impossible 
to prevent disputes and disturbances; every 'consideration re- 
quired, that whatever was to be done should be done quickly; 
and yet every thing, thus far, had waited the sluggish flow of 
the current of diplomacy. Labitur et labetur. 

I have already stated, that on the receipt of Mr. Forsyth's 
last counter-plan, or counter-project, Lord Palmerston, at last, 
paused. He did so. The British government appears to have 
made up its mind that nothing was to be expected, at that time, 
from pursuing further this battle-door play of projets and contre- 
projets. What occurred in England, w r e collect from the pub- 
lished debates of the House of Commons. From these we 
learn, that after General Harrison's election, and, indeed, after 
his death, and in the first year of Mr. Tyler's Presidency, Lord 
Palmerston wrote to Mr. Fox as follows : 

" Her majesty's government received, with very great regret, the second Amer- 
ican counter-draught of a convention for determining the boundary between the 
United States and the British North American provinces, which you transmitted 
to me last autumn, in your dispatch of the 15th of August, 1840, because that coun- 
ter-draught contained so many inadmissible propositions, that it plainly showed 
that her majesty's government could entertain no hope of concluding any ar- 
rangement on this subject with the government of Mr. Van Buren, and that there 
was no use in taking any further steps in the negotiations till the new President 
should come into power. Her majesty's government had cei'tainly been per- 
suaded that a draught which, in pursuance of your instruction, you presented to 
Mr. Forsyth on the 28th of July, 1840, was so fair in its provision, and so well 
calculated to bring the differences between the two governments about the 
boundary to a just and satisfactory conclusion, that it would have been at once 
accepted by the government of the United States; or that if the American gov- 
ernment had proposed to make any alterations iu it, those alterations would have 
related merely to matters of detail, and would not have borne upon any essential 
points of the arrangement ; and her majesty's government were the more con- 
firmed in this hope, because almost all the main principles of the arrangement 






» 
252 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

which that draught was intended to carry into execution had, as her majesty's 
government conceived, been either suggested by, or agreed to by, the United 
States government itself." 

Lord Palmerston is represented to have said, in this dispatch 
of Mr. Forsyth's counter-project, that he "can not agree" to 
the preamble ; that he " can not consent" to the second article ; 
that he " must object to the fourth article ;" that the " seventh 
article imposed incompatible duties ;" and to every article 
there was an objection, stated in a different form, until he 
reached the tenth, and that, as to that, " none could be more 
inadmissible. ' 

This was the state of the negotiation a few days before 
Lord Palmerston's retirement. But, nevertheless, his lordship 
would make one more attempt, now that there was a new ad- 
ministration here, and he would make " new proposals." And 
what were they ? 

" And what does the House think," said Sir Robert Peel, in the House of Com- 
mons, " were the noble lord's proposals in that desperate state of circumstances? 
The proposal of the noble lord, after fifty-eight years of controversy, submitted 
by him to the American government for the purpose of a speedy settlement, was, 
that commissioners should be nominated on both sides; that they should attempt 
to make settlement of this long-disputed question ; and then, if that failed, that 
the King of Prussia, the King of Sardinia, and the King of Saxony were to be 
called in, not to act as umpires, but they were each to be requested to name a 
scientific man, and that these three members of a scientific commission should 
proceed to arbitrate. Was there ever a proposition like this suggested for the ar- 
rangement of a question on which two countries had differed for fifty-eight years? 
And this, too, was proposed after the failure of the arbitration on the part of the 
King of Holland, and when they had had their commission of exploration in vain. 
And yet. with all this, there were to be three scientific men, foreign professors: 
one from Prussia, one from Sardinia, and one from Saxony ! To do what ? And 
where were they to meet? or how were they to come to a satisfactory adjust- 
ment?" 

It was asked in the House of Commons, not inaptly, what 
would the people of Maine think, when they should read that 
they were to be visited by three learned foreigners, one from 
Prussia, one from Saxony, and one from Sardinia? To be 
sure ; what would they think, when they should see three 
learned foreign professors, each speaking a different language, 
and none of them the English or American tongue, among the 
swamps and morasses of Maine, in summer, or wading through 
its snows in winter ; on the Allagash, the Macadavie, or among 
the moose deer, on the precipitous and lofty shores of Lake Po- 
henagamook — and for what? To find where the division was 
between Maine and New Brunswick ! Instructing themselves, 
by these labors, that they might repair to Frankfort-on-the- 
Maine, and there hold solemn and scientific arbitration on the 
question of a boundary line in one of the deepest wildernesses 
of North America ! 

Sir, I do not know what might have happened if this project 
had gone on. Possibly, sir, but that your country has called 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 253 

you to higher duties, you might now have been at Frankfort- 
on-the-Maine, the advocate of our cause before the scientific 
arbitration. If not yourself, some one of the honorable mem- 
bers here very probably would have been employed in attempt- 
ing to utter the almost unspeakable names, bestowed by the 
northeastern Indians on American lakes and streams, in the 
heart of Germany. 

Mr. Fox, it is said, on reading his dispatch, replied, with char- 
acteristic promptitude and good sense, " for God's sake save us 
from the philosophers ! Have sovereigns, if you please, but no 
professional men." 

But Mr. Fox was instructed, as it now appears, to renew his 
exertions to carry forward the arbitration. " Let us," said Lord 
Palmerston, in writing to him, " let us consider the American 
contre-projet as unreasonable, undeserving of answer, as with- 
drawn from consideration, and now submit my original projet 
to Mr. Webster, the new Secretary of State, and persuade him 
it is reasonable." 

With all respect, sir, to Lord Palmerston, Mr. Webster was 
not to be so persuaded ; that is to say, he was not persuaded 
that it was reasonable, or wise, or prudent to pursue the nego- 
tiation, in this form, further. He hoped to live long enough to 
see the northeastern boundary settled ; but that hope was faint, 
unless he could rescue the question from the labyrinth of proj- 
ects and counter-projects, explorations and arbitration, in which 
it was involved. He could not reasonably expect that he had 
another whole half century of life before him. 

Mr. President, it is true that I viewed the case as hopeless 
without an entire change in the manner of proceeding. I found 
the parties already "in wandering mazes lost." I found it 
quite as tedious and difficult to trace the thread of this intricate 
negotiation, as it would be to run out the line of the Highlands 
itself. One was quite as full as the other of deviations, abrupt- 
nesses, and perplexities. And having received the President's 
(Mr. Tyler's) authority, I did say to Mr. Fox, as has been stat- 
ed in the British Parliament, that I was willing to attempt to 
settle the dispute by agreeing on a conventional line, or line by 
compromise. 

Mr. President, I was fully aware of the difficulty of the un- 
dertaking. I saw it was a serious affair to call on Maine to 
come into an agreement by which she might subject herself 
to the loss of territory which she regarded as clearly her own. 
The question touched her proprietary interests, and, what was 
more delicate, it touched the extent of her jurisdiction. I knew 
well her extreme jealousy and high feeling on this point.* But 

* It is now well known that in 1832 an agreement was entered into between 



254 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

I believed in her patriotism, and in her willingness to make 
sacrifices for the good of the country. I trusted, too, that her 
own good sense would lead her, while she, doubtless, preferred 
the strict execution of the treaty, as she understood it, to any 
line by compromise, to see, nevertheless, that the government 
of the United States was already pledged to arbitration by its 
own proposition and the agreement of Great Britain; that this 
arbitration might not be concluded and finished for many years, 
and that, after all, the result might be doubtful. With this re- 
liance on the patriotism and good sense of Maine, and with the 
sanction of the President, I was willing to make an effort to es- 
tablish a boundary by direct compromise and agreement ; by 
acts of the parties themselves, which they could understand and 
judge of for themselves ; by a proceeding which left nothing to 
the future judgment of others, and by which the controversy 
could be settled in six months. And, sir, I leave it to the Sen- 
ate to-day, and the country always, to say, how far this offer 
and this effort were wise or unwise, statesman-like or unstates- 
man-like, beneficial or injurious. 

Well, sir, in the autumn of 1841, it was known in England 
to be the opinion of the American government that it was not 
advisable to prosecute further the scheme of arbitration ; that 
that government was ready to open a negotiation for a conven- 
tional line of boundary ; and a letter from Mr. Everett, dated 
on the 31st of December, announced the determination of the 
British government to send a special minister to the United 
States, authorized to settle all matters in difference, and the 
selection of Lord Ashburton for that trust. This letter was 
answered, on the 29th of January, by an assurance that Lord 
Ashburton would be received with the respect due to his gov- 
ernment and to himself. Lord Ashburton arrived in Washing- 
ton on the 4th of April, 1842, and was presented to the Presi- 
dent on the 6th. 

On the 11th, a letter was written from the Department of 
State to the Governor of Maine, announcing his arrival, and 
his declaration that he had authority to treat for a convention- 
al line of boundary, or line by agreement, on mutual condi- 
tions, considerations, and equivalents. 

The Governor of Maine was informed that, 

some of the heads of departments at Washington, viz., Messrs. Livingston, M'Lane, 
and Woodbury, under the direction of President Jackson, on the part of the Unit- 
ed States, and Messrs. Preble, Williams, and Emery, on the part of the govern- 
ment of Maine, by which it was stipulated that Maine should surrender to the 
United States the territory which she claimed beyond the line designated by the 
King of the Netherlands, and receive as an indemnity one million of acres of the 
public lands, to be selected by herself in Michigan. The existence of this treaty 
was not known for some time, and it was never ratified by the high contracting 
parties. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 255 

" Under these circumstances, the President had felt it to be his duty to call the 
serious attention of the governments of Maine and Massachusetts to the subject, 
and to submit to those governments the propriety of their co-operation, to a cer- 
tain extent, and in a certain form, in an endeavor to terminate a controversy al- 
ready of so long duration, and which seems very likely to be still considerably 
further protracted before the desired end of a final adjustment shall be attained, 
unless a shorter course of arriving at that end be adopted than such as has hereto- 
fore been pursued, and as the two governments are still pursuing. 

"The opinion of this government upon the justice and validity of tlie American 
claim has been expressed at so many times, and in so many forms, that a repeti- 
tion of that opinion is not necessary. But the subject is a subject in dispute. 
The government has agreed to make it a matter of reference and arbitration ; and 
it must fulfill that agreement, unless another mode of settling the controversy 
should be resorted to with the hope of producing a speedier decision. The Pres- 
ident proposes, then, that the governments of Maine and Massachusetts should 
severally appoint a commissioner or commissioners, empowered to confer with 
the authorities of this government upon a conventional line, or line by agreement, 
with its terms, conditions, considerations, and equivalents, with an understanding 
that no such line will be agreed upon without the assent of such commissioners. 

" This mode of proceeding, or some other which shall express assent before- 
hand, seems indispensable, if any negotiation for a conventional line is to be had ; 
6ince. if happily a treaty should be the result of the negotiation, it can only be 
submitted to the Senate of the United States for ratification." 

A similar letter was addressed to the Governor of Massa- 
chusetts. The Governor of Maine, now an honorable member 
of this House, immediately convoked the Legislature of Maine 
by proclamation. In Massachusetts the probable exigency had 
been anticipated, and the Legislature had authorized the gov- 
ernor, now my honorable colleague here, to appoint commis- 
sioners on behalf of the commonwealth. The Legislature of 
Maine adopted resolutions to the same effect, and duly elected 
four commissioners from among the most eminent persons in 
the state, of all parties ; and their unanimous consent to any 
proposed line of boundary was made indispensable. Three 
distinguished public men, known to all parties, and having the 
confidence of all parties, in any question of this kind, were ap- 
pointed commissioners by the Governor of Massachusetts. 

Now, sir, I ask, could any thing have been devised fairer, 
safer, and better for all parties than this? The states were 
here, by their commissioners ; Great Britain was here, by her 
special minister ; and the Canadian and New Brunswick au- 
thorities within reach of the means of consultation ; and the 
government of the United States was ready to proceed with 
the important duties it had assumed. Sir, 1 put the question 
to any man of sense, whether, supposing the real object to be 
a fair, just, convenient, prompt settlement of the boundary dis- 
pute, this state of things was not more promising than all the 
schemes of exploration and arbitration, and all the tissue of 
projects and counter-projects with which the two governments 
had been making themselves strenuously idle for so many 
years? Nor was the promise not fulfilled. 

It has been said, absurdly enough, that Maine was coerced 
into a consent to this line of boundary. What was the coer- 



256 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

cion? Where was the coercion? On the one hand, she saw 
an immediate and reasonable settlement ; on the other hand, a 
proceeding sure to be long, and its result seen to be doubtful. 
Sir, the coercion was none other than the coercion of duty, 
good sense, and manifest interest. The right and the expedient 
united, to compel her to give up the wrong, the useless, the in- 
expedient. 

Maine was asked to judge for herself, to decide on her own 
interests, not unmindful, nevertheless, of those patriotic consid- 
erations which should lead her to regard the peace and pros- 
perity of the whole country. Maine, it has been said, was per- 
suaded to part with a portion of territory by this agreement. 
Persuaded ! Why, sir, she was invited here to make a com- 
promise — to give and to take ; to surrender territory of very 
little value for equivalent advantages, of which advantages she 
was herself to be the uncontrolled judge. Her commissioners 
needed no guardians. They knew her interest. They knew 
what they were called on to part with, and the value of what 
they could obtain in exchange. They knew especially that on 
one hand was immediate settlement, on the other, ten or fifteen 
years more of delay and vexation. Sir, the piteous tears shed 
for Maine in this respect are not her own tears. They are the 
crocodile tears of pretended friendship and party sentimentali- 
ty. Lamentations and griefs have been uttered in this Capitol 
about the losses and sacrifices of Maine, which nine tenths of 
the people of Maine laugh at. Nine tenths of her people, to this 
day, heartily approve the treaty. It is my full belief that there 
are not at this moment fifty respectable persons in Maine who 
would now wish to see the treaty annulled, and the state replac- 
ed in the condition in which it was, with Mr. Van Buren's ar- 
bitration before it, and inevitably fixed upon it, by the plight- 
ed faith of this government, on the 4th of March, 1841. 

Sir, the occasion called for the revision of a very long line 
of boundary ; and what complicated the case, and rendered it 
more difficult, was, that the territory on the side of the United 
States belonged to no less than four different states. The es- 
tablishment of the boundary was to affect Maine, New Hamp- 
shire, Vermont, and New York. All these states were to be 
satisfied, if properly they could be. Maine, it is true, was 
principally concerned. But she did not expect to retain all 
that she called her own, and yet get more ; and still call it 
compromise, and an exchange of equivalents. She was not so 
absurd. I regret some things which occurred ; particularly 
that while the commissioners of Maine assented, unanimously, 
to the boundary proposed, on the equivalents proposed, yet, in 
the paper in which they express that assent, they seem to ar- 
gue against the act which they were about to perform. This, 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL, PAPERS. 257 

I think, was a mistake. It had an awkward appearance, and 
probably gave rise to whatever of dissatisfaction has been ex- 
pressed in any quarter. 

And now, sir, I am prepared to ask whether the proceeding 
adopted, that is, an attempt to settle this long controversy by 
the assent of the states concerned, was not wise and discreet, 
under the circumstances of the case? Sir, the attempt suc- 
ceeded, and it put an end to a controversy which had subsist- 
ed, with no little inconvenience to the country, and danger to 
its peace, through every administration, from that of General 
Washington to that of Mr. Van Buren. It is due to truth, and 
to the occasion, to say, that there were difficulties and obsta- 
cles in the way of this settlement, which had not been over- 
come under the administration of Washington, or the elder Ad- 
ams, or Mr. Jefferson, or Mr. Madison, or Mr. Monroe, or Mr. 
J. Q. Adams, or General Jackson, or Mr. Van Buren. In 1842, 
in the administration of Mr. Tyler, the dispute was settled, and 
settled satisfactorily. 

Sir, whatever may be said to the contrary, Maine was no 
loser, but an evident gainer by this adjustment of boundary. 
She parted with some portion of her territory ; this I would 
not undervalue ; but certainly most of it was quite worthless. 
Captain Talcot's report, and other evidence, sufficiently estab- 
lish that fact. 

Maine having, by her own free consent, agreed to part with 
this portion of territory, received, in the first place, from the 
Treasury of the United States, $150,000 for her half of the 
land, a sum which I suppose to be much greater than she would 
have realized from the sale of it in fifty years. No person, 
well informed on the subject, can doubt this. 

In the next place, the United States government paid her for 
the expenses of her civil posse to defend the state, and also for 
the surveys. On this account she has already received $200,000, 
and hopes to receive 80 or 100,000 dollars more. If this hope 
shall be realized, she will have received $450,000 in cash. 

But Maine, I admit, did not look, and ought not to have look- 
ed, to the treaty as a mere pecuniary bargain. She looked at 
other things besides money. She took into consideration that 
she was to enjoy the free navigation of the River St. John. 
I thought this a great object at the time the treaty was made ; 
but I had then no adequate conception of its real importance. 
Circumstances which have since taken place show that its ad- 
vantages to the state are far greater than I then supposed. 
That river is to be free to the citizens of Maine for the trans- 
portation down its stream of all unmanufactured articles what- 
ever. Now, what is this River St. John 1 We have heard 
a vast deal lately of the immense value and importance of the 

R 



258 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

River Columbia and its navigation ; but I will undertake to 
say that, for all purposes of human use, the St. John's is worth 
a hundred times as much as the Columbia is, or ever will be. 
In point of magnitude, it is one of the most respectable rivers 
on the eastern side of this part of America. It is longer than 
the Hudson, and as large as the Delaware. And, moreover, 
it is a river which has a mouth to it, and that, in the opinion of 
the member from Arkansas (Mr. Sevier), is a thing of some 
importance in the matter of rivers. [A laugh.] It is naviga- 
ble from the sea, and by steam-boats, to a greater distance than 
the Columbia. It runs through a good country, and its sources 
afford a communication with the Aroostook Valley. And I will 
leave it to the members from Maine to say whether that valley 
is not one of the finest and most fertile parts of the state. And 
I will leave it not only to him, but to any man at all acquaint- 
ed with the facts, whether this free navigation of the St. John's 
has not at once greatly raised the value of the lands on Fish 
River, on the Allegash, Madawasca, and the St. Francis. That 
whole region has no other outlet, and the value of the lumber 
which has, during this very year, been floated down that riv- 
er, is far greater than that of all the furs which have descend- 
ed from Fort Vancouver to the Pacific. On this subject I am 
enabled to speak with authority, for it has so happened that, since 
the last adjournment of the Senate, I have looked at an official 
return of the Hudson's Bay Company, showing the actual ex- 
tent of the fur trade in Oregon, and I find it to be much less 
than I had supposed. An intelligent gentleman from Missouri 
estimated the value of that trade, on the west of the Rocky 
Mountains, at 8300,000 annually ; but I find it stated in the 
last publication by Mr. M'Gregor, of the board of trade in En- 
gland (a very accurate authority), that the receipts of the Hud- 
son's Bay Company for furs west of the Rocky Mountains, in 
1828, is placed at 8138,000. I do not know, though the mem- 
ber from Missouri is likely to know, whether all these furs are 
brought to Fort Vancouver ; or whether some of them are not 
sent through the passes in the mountains to Hudson's Bay ; or 
to Montreal, by the way of the north shore of Lake Superior. 
I suppose this last to be the case. It is stated, however, by 
the same authority, that the amount of goods received at Van- 
couver, and deposed of in payment for furs, is 820,000 annu- 
ally, and no more. 

Now, sir, this right to carry lumber, and grain, and cattle 
to the mouth of the River St. John, on equal terms with the 
British, is a matter of great importance ; it brings lands lying 
on its upper branches, f^r in the interior, into direct communi- 
cation with the sea. Those lands are valuable for timber now, 
and a portion of them are the best in the state for agriculture. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 259 

The fact has been stated to me on the best authority, that in 
the Aroostook Valley land is to be found which has yielded 
more than forty bushels of wheat to the acre, even under the 
common cultivation of new countries. I must, therefore, think 
that the commissioners from Maine were quite right in believ- 
ing that this was an important acquisition for their state, and 
one worth the surrender of some acres of barren mountains 
and impenetrable swamps. 

But, Mr. President, there is another class of objections to 
this treaty boundary on which I wish to submit a few remarks. 
It has been alleged that the Treaty of Washington ceded very 
important military advantages on this Continent to the British 
government. One of these is said to be a military road be- 
tween the two provinces of New Brunswick and Lower Can- 
ada ; and the other is the possession of certain heights, well 
adapted, as is alleged, to military defense. I think the honor- 
able member from New York, furthest from the chair (Mr. 
Dix), said, that by the Treaty of Washington a military road 
was surrendered to England, which she considered as of vital 
importance to her possessions in America. 

Mr. Dix rose to explain. He had not spoken of a "military 
road" but of a portion of territory affording a means of milita- 
ry communication between two of her provinces. 

Mr. Webster. Well, it is the same thing, and we will see how 
that matter stands. The honorable member says that he said a 
means of military communication, and not a military road. I 
am not a military man, and therefore may not so clearly com- 
prehend, as that member does, the difference between a milita- 
ry road and a means of military communication [a laugh] ; but 
I will read from the honorable member's speech, which I have 
before me, understood to have been revised by himself. The 
honorable member says: 

" The settlement of the northeastern boundary — one of the most delicate and 
difficult that has ever arisen between us — affords a striking evidence of our desire 
to maintain with her the most friendly understanding. We ceded to her a por- 
tion of territory which she deemed of vital importance as a means of military com- 
munication between the Canadas and her Atlantic provinces, and which will 
give her a great advantage in a contest with us. The measure was sustained by 
the constituted authorities of the country, and I have no desire or intention to call 
its wisdom in question. But it proves that we were not unwilling to afford Great 
Britain any facility she required for consolidating her North American posses- 
sions: acting in peace as though war was not to be expected between the two 
countries. If we had cherished any ambitious designs in respect to them; if we 
had had any other wish than that of continuing on terms of amity with her and 
them, this great military advantage would never have been conceded to her. 

" On the other hand, I regret to say that her course toward us has been a course 
of perpetual encroachment. But, sir, I will not look back upon what is past for 
the purpose of reviving disturbing recollections." 

I should be very glad if the honorable gentleman would show 
how England derives so highly important benefits from the 



260 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

treaty in a military point of view, or what proof there is that 
she so considers the matter. 

Mr. Dix said that this treaty had been proclaimed by the 
President in the latter part of the year 1842. Mr. Dix had at 
that time left the country. The injunction of secrecy had been 
removed from the proceedings of the Senate in regard to the 
ratification. Although temporarily absent from the country, 
Mr. Dix had not lost sight of the state of things at home. He 
read with interest the debates in the British House of Parlia- 
ment in regard to the treaty, and he was struck with the fact 
(and the debates would bear him out in the statement) that dis- 
tinguished public men deemed the acquisition of territory which 
had been gained to be one of vital importance as a means of 
connection and communication between their provinces in 
America. As to a military road, he had never traced its 
course upon the map ; but he believed that it passed along the 
east bank of the St. John's until that river turned westward, 
and then along its north bank toward Quebec. But by the 
award of the King of Holland, the road would have had to 
run quite round the head of the River St. Francis. By that 
award our boundary was to pass over the range of highlands, 
far to the north, and near the St. Lawrence River. But by the 
Treaty of Washington, the line leaves those heights, and was 
so thrown back as to pass several miles further to the east- 
ward. He had some notes here of the debates in Parliament, 
and, as the gentleman had called upon him for his proof, Mr. 
Dix would read a few extracts. Here Mr. Dix read sundry 
extracts from, debates in the House of Commons, and said he 
thought they sustained his position. But he desired to say that 
he had raised no question touching the wisdom of the provi- 
sions of the treaty, or made any reflections either on those who 
negotiated the treaty, or on those who ratified it. 
• Mr. Webster proceeded. The passages which the honorable 
member has read, however pertinent they may be to another 
question, do not touch the question immediately before us. I 
understand quite well what was said of the heights ; but no- 
body, so far as I know, ever spoke of this supposed military 
road or military communication as of any importance at all, 
unless it be in a remark, not very intelligible, in an article as- 
cribed to Lord Palmerston. 

I was induced to refer to this subject, sir, by a circumstance 
which I have not long been apprised of. Lord Palmerston (if 
he be the author of certain publications ascribed to him) says 
that all the important points were given up by Lord Ashburton 
to the United States. I might here state, too, that Lord Pal- 
merston called the whole treaty "the Ashburton capitulation," 
declaring that it yielded every thing that was of importance to 






DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 261 

Great Britain, and that all its stipulations were to the advantage 
of the United States, and to the sacrifice of the interests of En- 
gland. But it is not on such general statements, and such un- 
just statements, nor on any off-hand expressions used in debate, 
though in the roundest terms, that this question must turn. He 
speaks of this military road, but he entirely misplaces it. The 
road which runs from New Brunswick to Canada follows the 
north side of the St. John's to the mouth of the Madawasca, 
and then turning northwest, follows that stream to Lake Te- 
misquota, and thence proceeds over a depressed part of the 
highlands till it strikes the St. Lawrence one hundred and sev- 
enteen miles below Quebec. This is the road which has been 
always used, and there is no other. 

I admit, it is very convenient for the British government to 
possess territory through which they may enjoy a road ; it is 
of great value as an avenue of communication in time of peace ; 
but, as a military communication, it is of no value at all. What 
business can an army ever have there? Besides, it is no gorge, 
no pass, no narrow defile, to be defended by a fort. If a fort 
should be built there, an army could, at pleasure, make a de- 
tour so as to keep out of the reach of its guns. It is very use- 
ful, I admit, in time of peace. But does not every body know, 
military man or not, that unless there is a defile, or some nar- 
row place through which troops must pass, and which a forti- 
fication will command, that a mere open road must, in time of 
war, be in the power of the strongest? If we retained the road 
by treaty, and war came, w r ould not the English take possession 
of it if they could? Would they be restrained by a regard to 
the Treaty of Washington? I have never yet heard a reason 
adduced why this communication should be regarded as the 
slightest possible advantage in a military point of view. 

But the circumstance, which I have not long known, is, that, 
by a map published with the speech of the honorable member 
from Missouri, made in the Senate, on the question of ratifying 
the treaty, this well-known and long-used road is laid down, 
probably from the same source of error which misled Lord Pal- 
merston, as following the St. John's, on its south side, to the 
mouth of the St. Francis ; thence along that river to its source, 
and thence, by a single bound, over the highlands, to the St. 
Lawrence, near Quebec. This is all imagination. It is called 
the "Valley Road." Valley Road, indeed! Why, sir, it is 
represented as running over the very ridge of the most inac- 
cessible part of the highlands! It is made to cross abrupt and 
broken precipices 2000 feet high! It is, at different points of 
its imaginary course, from fifty to a hundred miles distant from 
the real road. All this road is mere imagination. So much, 
Mr. President, for the great boon of military communication 



262 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

conceded to England. The truth is, there is nothing more 
nor less than a common road, along streams and lakes, and 
over a country in great part rather flat. It then passes the 
heights to the St. Lawrence. If war breaks out, we shall take 
it it we can, and if we need it, of which there is not the slight- 
est probability. It will never be protected by fortifications, 
and never can be. It will be just as easy to take it from En- 
gland in case of war, as it would be to keep possession of it if 
it were our own. 

In regard to the defense of the heights, I shall dispose of that 
subject in a few words. There is a ridge of highlands which 
does approach the River St. Lawrence, although it is not true 
that they overlook Quebec ; on the contrary, the ridge is at the 
distance of thirty or forty miles from Quebec. 

It is very natural that military men in England, or, indeed, 
in any part of Europe, should have attached great importance 
to these mountains. The great military authority of England 
— perhaps the highest living military authority — had served in 
India and on the European continent, and it was natural enough 
that he should apply European ideas of military defenses to 
America. But they are quite inapplicable. Highlands such 
as these were not ordinarily found on the great battle-fields of 
Europe. They are neither Alps nor Pyrenees ; they have no 
passes through them, nor roads over them, and never will have. 
Then there was another reason. In 1839 an ex parte survey 
was made, as I have said, by Colonel Mudge and Mr. Feather- 
stonhaugh, if survey it could be called, of the region in the 
north of Maine, for the use of the British government. I dare 
say Colonel Mudge is an intelligent and respectable officer ; 
how much personal attention he gave the subject I do not know. 
As to Mr. Featherstonhaugh, he has been in our service, and his 
authority is known to be not worth a straw. These two persons 
made a report containing this very singular statement : That, 
in the ridge of highlands nearest the St. Lawrence, there was 
a great hiatus in one particular place, a gap of thirty or forty 
miles, in which the elevation did not exceed fifty feet. This 
was certainly the strangest statement that ever was made.* 
Their whole report gave but one measurement by the barom- 
eter, and that measurement stated the height of 1200 feet. A 
survey and map were made the following year by our own 
commissioners, Messrs. Graham and Talcot, of the Topograph- 
ical Corps, and Professor Renwick, of Columbia College. On 
this map, the very spot where this gap was said to be situated 
is dotted over thickly with figures, showing heights varying 
from 1200 to 2000 feet, and forming one rough and lofty ridge, 

* See page 44 of their printed report. This pretended hiatus in the chain of 
highlands is included in the space A B in the accompanying map. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 263 

marked by abrupt and almost perpendicular precipices. When 
this map and report of Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh 
were sent to England, the British authorities saw that this al- 
leged gap was laid down as an indefensible point, and it was 
probably on that ground alone that they desired a line east of 
that ridge, in order that they might guard against access of a 
hostile power from the United States. But, in truth, there is no 
such gap, not at all; our engineers proved this, and we quite 
well understood it when agreeing to the boundary. Any man 
of common sense, military or not, must, therefore, now see that 
nothing can be more imaginary or unfounded than the idea that 
any importance could attach to the possession of these heights. 

Sir, there are two old and well-known roads to Canada, one 
by way of Lake Champlain and the Richelieu to Montreal. 
This is the route which armies have traversed so often, in dif- 
ferent periods of our history. The other leads from the Ken- 
nebec River to the sources of the Chaudiere and the Du Loup, 
and so to Quebec. This last was the track of Arnold's march. 
East of this, there is no practicable communication for troops 
between Maine and Canada till we get to the Madawasca. We 
had before us a report from General Wool, while this treaty 
was in negotiation, in which that intelligent officer declares 
that it is perfectly idle to think of fortifying any point east of 
this road. East of Arnold's track it is a mountain region, 
through which no army can possibly pass into Canada. With 
General Wool was associated, in this examination, Major Gra- 
ham, whom I have already mentioned. His report to General 
Wool, made in the year 1838, clearly points out the Kennebec 
and Chaudiere road as the only practicable route for an army 
between Maine and Quebec. He was subsequently employed 
as a commissioner in the ex parte surveys on the part of the 
United States. Being an engineer officer of high character for 
military knowledge and scientific accuracy, his opinion had the 
weight it ought to have, and which will be readily given to it 
by all who know him. His subsequent and still more thorough 
acquaintance with this mountain range in its whole extent has 
only confirmed the judgment which he had previously formed. 
And, sir, this avenue to Canada, this practicable avenue, and 
only practicable avenue east of that by way of Lake Champlain, 
is left now just as it was found by the treaty. The treaty does 
not touch it, nor in any manner affect it at all. 

But I must go further. I said that the Treaty of Washington 
was a treaty of equivalents, in which it was expected that each 
party should give something and receive something. And I 
am now willing to meet any gentleman, be he a military man 
or not, who will make the assertion that, in a military point of 
view, the greatest advantages derived from that treaty were 



2Qi DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

on the side of Great Britain. It was on this point that I wished 
to say something in reply to an honorable member from New 
York (Mr. Dickinson), who will have it that in this treaty En- 
gland supposes that she got the advantage of us. Sir, I do not 
think the military advantages she obtained by it are worth a 
rush. But even if they were — if she had obtained advantages 
of the greatest value — would it not have been fair in the mem- 
ber from New York to state, nevertheless, whether there were 
not equivalent military advantages obtained on our side, in other 
parts of the line ? Would it not have been candid and proper 
in him. when adverting to the military advantage obtained by 
England, in a communication between New Brunswick and 
Canada, if such advantages there were, to have stated, on the 
other hand, and at the same time, the regaining by us of Rouse's 
Point, at the outlet of Lake Cham plain? an advantage which 
overbalanced all others, forty times told. I must be allowed 
to say that I certainly never expected that a member from 
New York, above all other men, should speak of this treaty as 
conferring military advantages on Great Britain without full 
equivalents. I listened to it, I confess, with utter astonishment. 
A distinguished member from that state (Mr. Wright) saw, at 
the time, very clearly the advantage gained by this treaty to 
the United States and to New York. He voted willingly for 
its ratification, and he never will say that Great Britain obtained 
a balance of advantages in a military point of view. 

Why, how is the State of New York affected by this treaty? 
Sir, is not Rouse's Point perfectly well known, and admitted, 
by every military man, to be the key of Lake Champlain? It 
commands every vessel passing up or down the lake between 
New York and Canada. It had always been supposed that 
this point lay some distance south of the parallel of 45, which 
was our boundary line with Canada, and, therefore, was within 
the United States ; and, under this supposition, the United 
States purchased the land, and commenced the erection of a 
strong fortress. But a more accurate survey having been 
made in 1818, by astronomers on both sides, it was found that 
the parallel of 45 ran south of this fortress, and thus Rouse's 
Point, with the fort upon it, was found to be in the British do- 
minions. This discovery created, as well it might, a great sen- 
sation here. None knows this better than the honorable mem- 
ber from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), who was then at the 
head of the Department of War. As Rouse's Point was no 
longer ours, we sent our engineers to examine the shores of 
the lake, to find some other place or places which we might 
fortify. They made a report on their return, saying that there 
were two other points, some distance south of Rouse's Point, 
one called Windmill Point, on the east side of the lake, and the 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 265 

other called Stony Point, on the west side, which it became nec- 
essary now to fortify, and they gave an estimate of the prob- 
able expense. When this treaty was in process of negotiation, 
we called for the opinion of military men respecting the value 
of Rouse's Point, in order to see whether it was highly desira- 
ble to obtain it. We had their report before us, in which it 
was stated that the natural and best point for the defense of 
the outlet of Lake Champlain was Rouse's Point. In fact, any 
body might see that this was the case who would look at the 
map. The point projects into the narrowest passage by which 
the waters of the lake pass into the Richelieu. Any vessel, 
passing into or out of the lake, must come within point-blank 
range of the guns of a fortress erected on this point ; and it 
ran out so far that any such vessel must approach the fort, 
head on, for several miles, so as to be exposed to a raking fire 
from the battery, before she could possibly bring her broadside 
to bear upon the fort at all. It was very different with the 
points further south. Between them the passage was much 
wider; so much so, indeed, that a vessel might pass directly 
between the two, and not be in reach of point-blank shot from 
either. 

Mr. Dickinson, of New York, here interposed to ask a ques- 
tion. Did not the Dutch line give us Rouse's Point ? 

Mr. Webster. Certainly not. It gave us a little semicircular 
line running round the fort, but not including what we had 
possessed before. And, besides, we had rejected the Dutch 
line, and the whole point now clearly belonged to England. It 
was all within the British territory. Does the gentleman un- 
derstand me now ? 

Mr. Dickinson. Oh, yes, I understand you now, and I un- 
derstood you before. 

Mr. Webster. I am glad he does. [A laugh.] I was saying 
that a vessel might pass between the two points, Windmill 
Point and Stony Point, and escape point-blank shot from either. 
Meanwhile, her broadside could be brought to bear upon either 
of them. The forts would be entirely independent of each 
other, and, having no communication, could not render each 
other the least assistance in case of attack. But the military 
men told us there was no sort of question that Rouse's Point 
was extremely desirable as a point of military defense. This 
is plain enough, and I need not spend time to prove it. Of one 
thing I am certain, that the true road to Canada is by the way 
of Lake Champlain. That is the old path. I take to myself 
the credit of having said here, thirty years ago, speaking of the 
mode of taking Canada, that when an American woodsman 
undertakes to fell a tree, he does not begin by lopping off the 
branches, but strikes his ax at once into the trunk. The trunk, 



263 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

in relation to Canada, is Montreal, and the River St. Lawrence 
down to Quebec ; and so we found in the last war. It is not my 
purpose to scan the propriety of military measures then adopt- 
ed, but I suppose it to have been rather accidental and unfor- 
tunate that we began the attack in Upper Canada. It would 
have been better military policy, as I suppose, to have pushed 
our whole force by the way of Lake Champlain, and made a 
direct movement on Montreal ; and, though we might thereby 
have lost the glories of the battles of the Thames and of Lun- 
dy's Lane, and of the sortie from Fort Erie, yet we should have 
won other laurels of equal, and perhaps greater value at Mont- 
real. Once successful in this movement, the whole country 
above would have fallen into our power. Is not this evident 
to every gentleman ? Now Rouse's Point is the best means 
of defending both the ingress into the lake and the exit from it. 
And I say now, that on the whole frontier of the State of New 
York, with the single exception of the Narrows below the city, 
there is not a point of equal importance. I hope this govern- 
ment will last forever ; but if it does not, and if, in the judgment 
of Heaven, so great a calamity shall befall us as the rupture of 
this Union, and the State of New York shall thereby be thrown 
upon her own defenses, I ask, is there a single point, except the 
Narrows, the possession of which she will so much desire? 
No, there is not one. And how did we obtain this advantage 
for her ? The parallel of 45 north was established by the treaty 
of 1783 as our boundary with Canada in that part of the line. 
But, as I have stated, that line was found to run south of Rouse's 
Point. And how did we get back this precious possession? 
By running a little semicircle like that of the Dutch king ? No ; 
we went back to the old line, which had always been supposed 
to be the true line, and the establishment of which gave us not 
only Rouse's Point, but a strip of land containing some thirty or 
forty thousand acres between the parallel of 45 and the old line. 
The same arrangement gave us a similar advantage in Ver- 
mont ; and I have never heard that the constituents of my friend 
near me (Mr. Phelps) made any complaint of the treaty. That 
state got about sixty or seventy thousand acres, including sev- 
eral villages, which would otherwise have been left on the 
British side of the line. We received Rouse's Point, and this 
additional land, as one of the equivalents for the cession of ter- 
ritory made in Maine. And what did we do for New Hamp- 
shire ? There was an ancient dispute as to which was the 
northwesternmost head of the Connecticut River. Several 
streams were found, either of which might be insisted on as the 
true boundary. But we claimed that called Hall's Stream. 
This had not formerly been allowed ; the Dutch award did not 
give to New Hampshire what she claimed ; and Mr. Van Ness, 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 267 

our commissioner, appointed under the Treaty of Ghent, after 
examining the ground, came to the conclusion that we were 
not entitled to Hall's Stream. I thought that we were so en- 
titled, although I admit that Hall's Stream does not join the 
Connecticut River till after it has passed the parallel of 45. 
By the Treaty of Washington this demand was agreed to, and 
it gave New Hampshire one hundred thousand acres of land. 
I do not say that we obtained this wrongfully, but I do say that 
we got that which Mr. Van Ness had doubted our right to. I 
thought the claim just, however, and the line was established 
accordingly. And here let me say, once for all, that if we had 
had recourse to another arbitration, we should inevitably have 
lost what the treaty gave to Vermont and New York, because 
all that was clear matter of cession, and not adjustment of doubt- 
ful boundary. 

I think that I ought now to relieve the Senate from any fur- 
ther remarks on this northeastern boundary. I say that it was 
a favorable arrangement both to Maine and Massachusetts, 
and that nine tenths of their people are well satisfied with it ; 
and I say also that it was advantageous to New Hampshire, 
Vermont, and New York ; and I say further, that it gave up no 
important military point, but, on the contrary, obtained one of 
the greatest consequence and value. And here I leave that 
part of the case for the consideration of the Senate and of the 
country. [Here the Senate adjourned.] 

April 7, 1846. 

Mr. Webster resumed. Yesterday I read an extract from 
the proceedings in the British Parliament of a dispatch of Lord 
Palmerston to Mr. Fox, in which Lord Palmerston says that 
the British government, as early as 1840, had perceived that 
they never could come to a settlement of this controversy with 
the government of Mr. Van Buren. I do not wish to say wheth- 
er the fault was more on one side than the other ; but I wish 
to bar, in the first place, any inference of an improper charac- 
ter which might be drawn from that statement of the British 
Secretary of Foreign Affairs. It was not that they looked for- 
ward to a change which should bring gentlemen into power 
here more pliable, or more agreeable to the purposes of England. 
No, sir, those remarks of Lord Palmerston, whether true or false, 
were not caused by any peculiar stoutness or stiffness which 
Mr. Van Buren had ever maintained on our side of the merits 
of the question. The merits of the boundary question were 
never discussed by Mr. Van Buren to any extent. The thing 
that his administration discussed was the formation of a con- 
vention of exploration and arbitration to settle the question. A 
few years before this dispatch of Lord Palmerston to Mr. Fox, 
the two governments, as I have repeatedly said, had agreed 



268 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

how the question should be settled. They had agreed that 
there should be an exploration. Mr. Van Buren had proposed 
and urged arbitration also. England had agreed to this, at his 
request. The governments had agreed to these two princi- 
ples, therefore, long before the date of that letter of Lord Pal- 
merston ; and from that agreement till near the close of Mr. 
Van Buren's administration, the whole correspondence turned 
on the arrangement of details of a convention for arbitration, 
according to the stipulation of the parties. Therefore, it was 
not on account of any notion that Mr. Van Buren stood up for 
American questions in a stronger manner than others ; it was 
because these subordinate questions respecting the convention 
for arbitration had got into so much complexity — so embarrass- 
ed with projects and counter-projects — had become so difficult 
and entangled ; and because every effort to disentangle them 
had made the matter worse. On this account alone Lord Pal- 
merston had made the remarks. I wish to draw no inference 
that would be injurious to others, to make no imputation on Mr. 
Van Buren. But it is necessary to remember that this dispute 
had run on for years, and was likely to run on forever, though 
the main principles had already been agreed on, viz., explora- 
tion and arbitration. It was an endless discussion of details 
and forms of proceeding, in which the parties receded further 
and further from each other every day. 

One thing more, sir, by way of explanation. I referred yes- 
terday to the report made by General Wool in respect to the 
road from Kennebec. In point of fact, the place which Gen- 
eral Wool recommended in 1838 to be fortified, was a few 
miles further east, toward the waters of the Penobscot River, 
than Arnold's route ; but, generally, the remark I made was 
perfectly true, that east of that line there has not been a road 
or passage. The honorable member from New York yester- 
day produced extracts from certain debates in Parliament re- 
specting the importance of the territory ceded to England in a 
military point of view. I beg to refer to some others which I 
hold in my hand, but which I shall not read — the speeches of 
Sir Charles Napier, Lord Palmerston, Sir Howard Douglass, 
&c, as an offset to those quoted by the honorable member. 
But I do not think it of importance to balance those opinions 
against each other. Some gentlemen appear to entertain one 
set of opinions, some another ; and, for my own part, I candid- 
ly admit, that by both one and the other, facts are overstated. 
I do not believe, sir, that any thing, in a military point of view, 
ceded by us to England, is of any consequence to us or to 
her, or that any thing important, in that respect, was ceded by 
either party, except one thing — that is, Rouse's Point. I do 
believe it was an object of importance to repossess ourselves 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 2G9 

of the site of that fortress, and to that point I shall proceed to 
make a few remarks that escaped me yesterday. I do not 
complain here that the member from New York has underrat- 
ed the importance of that acquisition. He has not spoken of it. 
But what I do complain of— if complaint it may be called — is, 
that when he spoke of cessions made to England by the Treaty 
of Washington, a treaty which proposed to proceed on the 
ground of mutual concessions, equivalents, and considerations 
— when referring to such a treaty to show the concessions 
made to England, he did not consider it necessary to state, on 
the other hand, the corresponding cessions made by England 
to us. And I say again, that the cession of Rouse's Point by her 
must be, and is considered to be, by those best capable of appre- 
ciating its value, of more importance than all the cessions we 
made to England in a military point ; and to show how our 
government have regarded its importance, let me remind you 
that, immediately on the close of the last war, although the 
country was heavily in debt, there was nothing to which the 
government addressed itself with more zeal than to fortify this 
position, as the natural defense of Lake Champlain. As early 
as 1816, the government paid twenty or thirty thousand dollars 
for the site, and went on with the work at an expense of one 
hundred thousand dollars ; but in 1818, the astronomers, ap- 
pointed on both sides, found it was on the English side of the 
boundary. That, of course, terminated our operations. But 
that is not all. How did our government regard the acquisi- 
tion by the Treaty of Washington ? Why, the ink with which 
that treaty was signed was hardly dry, when the most eminent 
engineers were dispatched to that place, who examined its 
strength, and proceeded to renew and rebuild it. And no mil- 
itary work — not even the fortifications for the defense of the 
Narrows, approaching the harbor of New York, has been pro- 
ceeded with by the government with more zeal. Having said 
so much, sir, I will merely add, that if gentlemen desire to ob- 
tain more information on this important subject, they may con- 
sult the head of the engineer corps, Colonel Totten, and Com- 
modore Morris, who went there by instructions to examine it, 
and who reported thereon. 

And here, sir, I conclude my remarks on the question of the 
northeastern boundary. 

And I now leave it to the country to say, whether this ques- 
tion — this troublesome, and annoying, and dangerous question 
— which had lasted through the ordinary length of two genera- 
tions, having now been taken up in 1841, was not well settled, 
and promptly settled? Whether it was not well settled for 
Maine and Massachusetts, and well settled for the whole coun- 
try? And whether, in the opinion of all fair and candid men, 



270 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

the complaint about it which we hear at this day does not arise 
entirely from a desire that those connected with the accomplish- 
ment of a measure so important to the peace of the country 
should not be allowed to derive too much credit from it? 

Mr. President, the destruction of the steam-boat "Caroline," 
in the harbor of Schlosser, by a British force, in December, 
1837, and the arrest of Alexander M'Leod, a British subject, 
composing part of that force, four years afterward, by the au- 
thorities of New York, and his trial for an alleged murder com- 
mitted by him on that occasion, have been subjects of remark, 
here and elsewhere, at this session of Congress. They are 
connected subjects, and call, in the first place, for a brief his- 
torical narrative. 

In the year 1837, a civil commotion, or rebellion, which had 
broken out in Canada, had been suppressed, and many persons 
engaged in it had fled to the United States. In the autumn of 
that year, these persons, associating with themselves many oth- 
ers of lawless character in the United States, made actual war 
on Canada, and took possession of Navy Island, belonging to 
England, in the Niagara River. It may be the safest course to 
give an account of these occurrences from official sources. Mr. 
Van Buren thus recites the facts, as the government of the Unit- 
ed States understood them, in his message of December, 1838: 

" I had hoped that the l-espect for the laws and regard for the peace and honor 
of their own country, which has ever characterized the citizens of the United 
States, would have prevented any portion of them from using any means to pro- 
mote insurrection in the territory of a power with which we are at peace, and 
with which the United States are desirous of maintaining the most friendly rela- 
tions. I regret deeply, however, to be obliged to inform you that this has not 
been the case. 

" Information has been given to me, derived from official and other sources, 
that many citizens of the United States have associated together to make hostile 
incursions from our territory into Canada, and to aid and abet insurrection there, 
in violation of the obligations and laws of the United States, and in open disre- 
gard of their own duties as citizens. This information has been in part confirmed 
by a hostile invasion actually made by citizens of the United States, in conjunc- 
tion with Canadians and others, and accompanied by a forcible seizure of the 
property of our citizens, and an application thereof to the prosecution of military 
operations against the authorities and people of Canada. The results of these 
criminal assaults upon the peace and order of a neighboring country have been, 
as was to be expected, fatally destructive to the misguided or deluded persons en- 
gaged in them, and highly injurious to those in whose behalf they are professed 
to have been undertaken. The authorities in Canada, from intelligence received 
of such intended movements among our citizens, have felt themselves obliged to 
take precautionary measures against them, have actually embodied the militia, 
and assumed an attitude to repel an invasion, to which they believed the colonies 
were exposed from the United States. A state of feeling on both sides of the front- 
ier had thus been produced which called for prompt and vigorous interference." 

The following is the British account of the same occur- 
rence : 

" In this state of things, a small band of Canadian refugees, who had taken shel- 
ter in the State of New York, formed a league with a number of the citizens of 
the United States for the purpose of invading the British territory, not to join a 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 271 

party engaged in civil war, because civil war at that time in Canada there was 
none, but in order to commit, within the British territory, the crimes of robbery, 
arson, and murder. 

" By a neglect on the part of that government (New York), which seems to ad- 
mit of but one explanation, the store-houses which contained the arms and ammu- 
nition of the state were left unguarded, and were consequently broken open by 
this gang, who carried off thence, in open day, and in the most public manner, 
cannon, and other implements of war. 

"After some days' prepaiation, these people proceeded, without any interrup- 
tion from the government or authorities of the State of New York, and under the 
command of an American citizen, to invade and occupy Navy Island, and part of 
the British territory; and, having engaged the steam-boat Caroline, which for 
their special service was cut out of the ice, in which she had been inclosed in the 

{>ort of Buffalo, they had used her for the purpose of bringing over to Navy Island, 
rom the United States territory, men, anus, ammunition, stores, and provisions. 
" The preparations made for this invasion of British territory by a band of men 
organized, armed, and equipped within the United States, and consisting partly of 
British subjects and partly of American citizens, had induced the British authori- 
ties to station a military force at Chippewa to repel the threatened invasion, and 
to defend her majesty's territory. The commander of that fort, seeing that the 
Caroline was used as a means of supply and re-enforcement for the invaders, who 
had occupied Navy Island, judged that the capture and destruction of that vessel 
would prevent supplies and re-enforcements from passing over to the island, and 
would, moreover, deprive the force on the island of the means of passing over to 
the British territory on the main land." 

According to the British account, the expedition sent to cap- 
ture the Caroline expected to find her at Navy Island ; but 
when the commanding officer came round the point of the 
island in the night, he found that she was moored to the other 
shore. This did not deter him from making the capture. In 
that capture, a citizen of the United States, by the name of 
Durfree, lost his life ; the British authorities pretend, by a 
chance shot by one of his own party ; the American, by a shot 
from one of the British party. 

This transaction took place on the 29th of December, 1837, 
in the first year of Mr. Van Buren's administration ; and no 
sooner was it known here, and made the subject of a com- 
munication by Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Fox, than the latter avowed 
it as an act done by the British authorities, and justified it as a 
proper and necessary measure of self-defense. Observe, sir, 
if you please, that the Caroline was destroyed in December, 
1837, and Mr. Fox's avowal of that destruction, as a govern- 
ment act, and his justification of it, were made in January fol- 
lowing, so soon as knowledge of the occurrence reached Wash- 
ington. Now, sir, if the avowal of the British minister, made 
in the name of his government, was a sufficiently authentic 
avowal, why, then, from that moment the government of Great 
Britain became responsible for the act, and the United States 
was to look to that government for reparation or redress, or 
whatever act, or acknowledgment, or apology the case called 
for. If Mr. Fox's letter was proper proof that the destruction 
of the Caroline was an act of public force, then the government 
of Great Britain was directly responsible to the government 



272 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

of the United States ; and of the British government directly, 
and the British government only, was satisfaction to be de- 
manded. Nothing was immediately done ; the matter was 
suffered to lie, and grow cool ; but it afterward became a ques- 
tion at what time the United States government did first learn, 
by sufficient evidence and authority, that the British govern- 
ment had avowed the destruction of the Caroline as its own 
act. Now, in the first place, there was the direct avowal of 
Mr. Fox, made at the time, and never disapproved. This 
avowal, and the account of the transaction, reached London in 
February, 1838. Lord Palmerston thinks that, in conversations 
with Mi\ Stevenson not long subsequent, he intimated distinctly 
that the destruction of the vessel would turn out to be justifi- 
able. At all events, it is certain that, on the 22d day of May, 
1838, in an official note to Lord Palmerston, written by instruc- 
tions from his government, demanding reparation for her de- 
struction, Mr. Stevenson did state that "the government of the 
United States did consider that transaction as an outrage upon 
the United States, and a violation of United States territory, 
committed by British troops, planned and executed by the 
Lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada." It is clear, then, that 
the government of the United States so understood the matter 
when it gave Mr. Stevenson the instructions on which he made 
this demand. The administration knew, full well, that the ex- 
pedition was a public expedition, set on foot by the authorities 
of Canada, avowed here immediately by Mr. Fox as an act for 
which the British government took upon itself the responsibil- 
ity, and never disavowed by that government at any time or 
in any way. 

And now, sir, why was this aggression on the territory of the 
United States — why was this indignity suffered to remain unvin- 
dicated and unredressed for three years? Why was no answer 
made, and none insisted on, to Mr. Stevenson's official and di- 
rect demand for reparation? The jealous guardians of national 
honor, so tenaciously alive to what took place in 1842, what 
opiate had drugged their patriotism for so many years ? Whose 
fault was it that, up to 1841, the government of Great Britain 
had been brought to no acknowledgment, no explanation, no 
apology ? This long and unbroken slumber over public out- 
rage and national indignity, who indulged in it? Nay, if the 
government of the United States thought it had not sufficient 
evidence that the outrage was, as it had declared it to be itself, 
a public outrage, then it was a private outrage, the invasion of 
our territory, and the murder of an American citizen, without 
any justification, or pretense of justification ; and had it not be- 
come high time that such an outrage was redressed? 

Sir, there is no escape from this. The administration of Mr. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 273 

Van Buren knew perfectly well that the destruction of the Car- 
oline was an act of public force, done by the British authori- 
ties in Canada. They knew it had never been disavowed at 
home. The act was a wrongful one on the part of the Cana- 
dian forces. They had no right to invade the territory of the 
United States. It was an aggression for which satisfaction 
was due, and should have been insisted on immediately, and 
insisted on perseveringly. But this was not done. The ad- 
ministration slept, and slept on, and would have slept till this 
time, if it had not been waked by the arrest of M'Leod. Being 
on this side of the line, and making foolish and false boasts of 
his martial achievements, M'Leod was arrested in November, 
1840, on a charge for the murder of Durfree in capturing the 
Caroline, and committed to prison by the authorities of New 
York. He was bailed ; but violence and mobs overawed the 
courts, and he was recommitted to jail. This was an important 
and very exciting occurrence. Mr. Fox made a demand for 
his immediate release. The administration of Mr. Van Buren 
roused itself, and looked round to ascertain its position. Mr. 
Fox again asserted that the destruction of the Caroline was an 
act of public force, done by public authority, and avowed by 
the English government, as the American government had 
long before known. To this Mr. Forsyth replied, in a note of 
December 26, 1840, thus: "If the destruction of the Caroline 
was a public act of persons in her majesty's service, obeying 
the order of their superior authorities, this fact has not been 
before communicated to the government of the United States 
by a person authorized to make the admission." Certainly, 
Mr. President, it is not easy to reconcile this language with 
the instructions under which Mr. Stevenson made his demand, 
of May, 1838, and which demand he accompanied with the 
declaration that the act was planned and executed by the au- 
thorities of Canada. Whether the act of the governor had or 
had not been approved at home, the government of the United 
States, one would think, could hardly need to be informed, in 
1840, that that act was committed by persons in her majesty's 
service, obeying the order of their superior authorities. Mr. 
Forsyth adds, very properly, that it will be for the courts to 
decide on the validity of the defense. It is worthy of remark, 
that in this letter of December 26, 1840. Mr. Forsyth complains 
that up to that day the government of the United States had 
not become acquainted with the views and intentions of the 
government of England respecting the destruction of the Caro- 
line ! Now, Mr. President, this was the state of things in the 
winter of 1840, '41, and on the 4th of March, 1841, when Gen- 
eral William Henry Harrison became President of the United 
States. 

S 



274 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

On the 12th of that same month of March, Mr. Fox wrote to 
the Department of State a letter, in which, after referring to 
his original correspondence with Mr. Forsyth, in which he had 
avowed and justified the capture of the Caroline as an act of 
necessary defense, he proceeds to say : 

" The undersigned is directed, in the first place, to make known to the govern- 
ment of the United States, that her majesty's government entirely approve of the 
course pursued by the undersigned in that correspondence, and of the language 
adopted by him in the official letters above mentioned. 

" And the undersigned is now instructed again to demand from the government 
of the United States, formally, in the name of the British government, the imme- 
diate release of Mr. Alexander M'Leod. 

" The grounds upon which the British government make this demand upon the 
government of the United States are these : That the transaction, on account of 
which Mr. M'Leod has been arrested and is to be put upon his trial, was a trans- 
action of a public character, planned and executed by persons duly empowered 
by her majesty's colonial authorities to take any steps and do any acts which 
might be necessary for the defense of her majesty's territories, and for the pro- 
tection of her majesty's subjects; and that, consequently, those subjects of her 
majesty who engaged in that transaction, were performing an act of public duty 
for which they can not be made personally and individually answerable to the 
laws and tribunals of any foreign country. 

" The transaction may have been, as her majesty's government are of opinion 
that it was, a justifiable employment of force for the purpose of defending the 
British territory from the unprovoked attack of a band of British rebels and 
American pirates, who, having been permitted to arm and organize themselves 
within the territory of the United States, had actually invaded and occupied a 
portion of the territory of her majesty ; or it may have been, as alleged by Mr. 
Forsyth in his note to the undersigned of the 26th of December, ' a most unjusti- 
fiable invasion, in time of peace, of the territory of the United States.' But it is a 
question essentially of a political and international kind, which can be discussed 
and settled only between the two governments, and which the courts of justice 
of the State of New York can not by possibility have any means of judging, or 
any right of deciding." 

The British government insisted that it must have been 
known, and was well known, long before, that it had avowed 
and justified the capture of the Caroline, and taken upon itself 
the responsibility. Mr. Forsyth, as you have seen, sir, in his 
note of December 2Gth, had said, that fact had not been before 
communicated by a person authorized to make the admission. 
Well, sir, then, what was now to be done 1 Here was a new, 
fresh, and direct avowal of the act by the British government, 
and a formal demand for M'Leod's immediate release. And 
how did General Harrison's administration treat this ? Sir, 
just as it ought to have treated it. It was not poor and mean 
enough in its intercourse with a foreign government to make 
any reflections on its predecessor, or appear to strike out a new 
path for itself. It did not seek to derogate, in the slightest de- 
gree, from the propriety of what had been said and done by 
Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Forsyth, whatever eminent example it 
might have found for such a course of conduct. No ; it rath- 
er "adopted what Mr. Forsyth had said in December, to wit, 
that at that time no authentic avowal had been communicated 
to the United States. But now an avowal had been made, on 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 275 

the authority of the government itself; and General Harrison 
acted, and acted rightly, on the case made by this avowal. 
And what opinions did he form, and what course did he pur- 
sue, in a crisis, and in regard to transactions so intimately con- 
nected with the peace and honor of the country? 

Sir, in the first place, General Harrison was of opinion that 
the entering of the United States territory by British troops, 
for the purpose of capturing or destroying the Caroline, was 
unjustifiable. That it was an aggression — a violation of the 
territory of the United States. Not that the British forces 
might not have destroyed that vessel, if they could have found 
her on their own side of the line ; for she was unlawfully em- 
ployed—she was assisting to make war on Canada. But she 
could not be followed into a port of the United States, and 
there captured. This was an offense to the dignity and sover- 
eignty of this government, for which apology 'and satisfaction 
ought long since to have been obtained, and which apology 
and satisfaction it was not yet too late to demand. This w*as 
General Harrison's opinion. 

In the next place, and on the other hand, General Harrison 
was of opinion that the arrest and detention of M'Leod were 
contrary to the law of nations. M'Leod was a soldier, acting 
under the authority of his government, and obeying orders 
which he was bound to obey. It was absurd to say that a sol- 
dier, who must obey orders or be shot, may still be hanged if 
he does obey them. Was General Harrison to turn aside from 
facing the British lion, and fall on a lamb 1 Was he to quail 
before the crown of England, and take vengeance on a private 
soldier ? No, sir, that was not in character for William Henry 
Harrison. He held the British government responsible ; he 
died, to the great grief of his country, but in the time of his 
successor that responsibility was justly appealed to, and satis- 
factorily fulfilled. 

Mr. Fox's letter, written under instructions from Lord Pal- 
merston, was a little peremptory, and some expressions were 
regarded as not quite courteous and conciliatory. This caused 
some hesitation ; but General Harrison said that he would not 
cavil at phrases, since, in the main, the British complaint was 
well founded, and we ought at once to do what we could to 
place ourselves right. 

Sir, the members of the administration were all of one mind 
on this occasion. General Harrison, himself a man of large 
general reading and long experience, was decidedly of opinion 
that M'Leod could not be lawfully holden to answer, in the 
courts of New York, for what had been done by him as a sol- 
dier, under superior orders. All the members of the adminis- 
tration were of the same opinion, without doubt or hesitation. 



276 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPF.KS. 

I may, without impropriety, say, that Mr. Crittenden, Mr. Ew- 
ing, Mr. Bell, Mr. Badger, and Mr. Granger were not all like- 
ly to come to an erroneous conclusion on this question of pub- 
lic law, after they had given it full consideration and examina- 
tion. 

Mr. Fox's letter was answered, and from that answer I will 
read an extract : 

" Mr. Fox informs the government of the United States that he is instructed to 
make known to it that the government of her majesty entirely appi-ove the course 
pursued by him in his correspondence with Mr. Forsyth in December last, and the 
language adopted by him on that occasion ; and that the government have instruct- 
ed him 'again to demand from the government of the United States, formally, in the 
name of the British government, the immediate release of Mr. Alexander M'Leod;' 
that ' the grounds upon which the British government make this demand upon 
the government of the United States are these : That the transaction on account 
of which Mr. M'Leod has been arrested, and is to be put upon his trial, was a 
transaction of a public character, planned and executed by persons duly empow- 
ered by her majesty's colonial authorities to take any steps and to do any acts 
which might be necessary for the defense of her majesty's territories, and for the 
protection of her majesty's subjects; and that, consequently, those subjects of her 
majesty who engaged in that transaction were performing an act of public duty 
for which they can not be made personally and individually answerable to the 
laws and tribunals of any foreign country.' 

•' The President is not certain that he understands precisely the meaning in- 
tended by her majesty's government to be conveyed by the foregoing instruction. 

" This doubt has occasioned with the President some hesitation; but he inclines 
to take it for granted that the main purpose of the instruction was to cause it to 
be signified to the government of the United States that the attack on the steam- 
boat ' Caroline' was an act of public force, done by the British colonial authori- 
ties, and fully recognized by the queen's government at home, and that, conse- 
quently, no individual concerned in that transaction can, according to the just 
principles of the laws of nations, be held personally answerable, in the ordinary 
courts of law, as for a private offense ; and that, upon this avowal of her majes- 
ty's government, Alexander M'Leod, now imprisoned on an indictment for mur- 
der, alleged to have been committed in that attack, ought to be released by such 
proceedings as are usual and are suitable to the case. 

" The President adopted the conclusion that nothing more than this could have 
been intended to be expressed, from the consideration that her majesty's govern- 
ment must be fully aware that, in the United States, as in England, persons con- 
fined under judicial process can be released from that confinement only by judi- 
cial process. In neither country, as the undersigned supposes, can the arm of 
the executive power interfere, directly or forcibly, to release or deliver the pris- 
oner. His discharge must be sought in a manner conformable to the principles 
of law and the proceedings of courts of judicature. If any indictment like that 
■which has been found against Alexander M'Leod, and under circumstances like 
those which belong to his case, were pending against an individual in one of the 
courts of England, there is no doubt that the law officer of the crown might en- 
ter a nolle prosequi, or that the prisoner might cause himself to be brought up on 
habeas corpus, and discharged, if his ground of discharge should be adjudged suf- 
ficient, or that he might prove the same facts, and insist on the same defense or 
exemption on his trial. 

" All these are legal modes of proceeding, well known to the laws and prac- 
tice of both countries. But the undersigned does not suppose that, if such a case 
were to arise in England, the power of the executive government could be exert- 
ed in any more direct manner. 

" Even in the case of embassadors and other public ministers, whose right to ex- 
emption from arrest is personal, requiring no fact to be ascertained but the mere 
fact of diplomatic character, and to arrest whom is sometimes made a highly pe- 
nal offense, if the arrest be actually made, it must be discharged by application to 
the courts of law. 






DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 277 

" It is understood that Alexander M'Leod is holden, as well on civil as on crim- 
inal process, for acts alleged to have been done by him in the attack on the ' Car- 
oline,' and his defense or ground of acquittal must be the same in both cases. 
And this strongly illustrates, as the undersigned conceives, the propriety of the 
foregoing observations ; siuce it is quite clear that the executive government can 
not interfere to arrest a civil suit between private parties in any stage of its prog- 
ress, but that such suit must go on to its regular judicial termination. If, there- 
fore, any course different from such as have been now mentioned was in contem- 
plation of her majesty's government, something would seem to have been expect- 
ed from the government of the United States as little conformable to the laws 
and usages of the English government as to those of the United States, and to 
which this government can not accede. 

" The government of the United States, therefore, acting upon the presumption 
which is already adopted, that nothing extraordinary or unusual was expected or 
requested of it, decided, on the reception of Mr. Fox's note, to take such meas- 
ures as the occasion and its own duty appeared to require. 

" In his note to Mr. Fox of the 26th of December last, Mr. Forsyth, the Secre- 
tary of State of the United States, observes, that, ' if the destruction of the Caro- 
line was a public act of persons in her majesty's service, obeying the order of 
their superior authorities, this fact has not been before communicated to the gov- 
ernment of the United States by a person authorized to make the admission; and 
it will be for the court, which has taken cognizance of the offense with which 
Mr. M'Leod is charged, to decide upon its validity when legally established be- 
fore it;' and adds: ' The President deems this a proper occasion to remind the 
government of her Britannic majesty that the case of the Caroline has been long 
since brought to the attention of her majesty's principal Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs, who, up to this day, has not communicated its decision thereupon. 
It is hoped that the government of her majesty will perceive the importance of 
no longer leaving the government of the United States uninformed of its views 
and intentions upon a subject which has naturally produced much exasperation, 
and which has led to such grave consequences.' 

" The communication of the fact that the destruction of the ' Caroline 1 was an 
act of public force by the British authorities being formally communicated to the 
government of the United States by Mr. Fox's note, the case assumes a different 
aspect. 

'• The government of the United States entertains no doubt that, after this 
avowal of the transaction as a public transaction, authorized and undertaken by 
the British authorities, individuals concerned in it ought not, by the principles of 
public law and the general usage of civilized states, to be holden personally re- 
sponsible in the ordinary tribunals of law for their participation in it. And the 
President presumes that it can hardly be necessary to say that the American peo- 
ple, not distrustful of their ability to redress public wrongs by public means, can 
not desire the punishment of individuals when the act complained of is declared 
to have been the act of the government itself. 

'• Soon after the date of Mr. Fox's note, an instruction was given to the attorn- 
ey-general of the United States from this department, by direction of the Presi- 
dent, which fully sets forth the opinions of this government on the subject of Mr. 
M'Leod's imprisonment, a copy of which instruction the undersigned has the 
honor herewith to inclose. 

"The indictment against M'Leod is pending in a state court; but his rights, 
whatever they may be, are no less safe, it is to be presumed, than if he were 
holden to answer in one of this government. 

" He demands immunity from personal responsibility by virtue of the law of 
nations ; and that law, in civilized states, is to be respected in all courts. None 
is either so high or so low as to escape from its authority in cases to which its 
rules and principles apply." 

And now, sir, who will deny that this decision was entirely 
correct? Who will deny that this arrest of M'Leod, and this 
threatening to hang him, was just cause of offense to the British 
government ? Sir, what should we have thought ourselves, in 
a like case? If United States troops, by the lawful authority 



278 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

of their government, were ordered to pass over the line of 
boundary for any purpose — retaliation, reprisal, fresh pursuit 
of an enemy, or any thing else — and the government of the ter- 
ritory invaded, not bringing our government to account, but 
sleeping three years over the affront, should then snatch up one 
of our citizens found in its jurisdiction, and who had been one 
of the force, and proceed to try, condemn, and execute him, sir, 
would not the whole country have risen up like one man? 
Should we have submitted to it for a moment? Suppose that 
now, by order of the President, and in conformity to law, an 
American army should enter Canada, or Oregon, for any pur- 
pose which the government of the United States thought just, 
and which it was ready to defend, and the British government, 
turning away from demanding responsibility or satisfaction from 
us, should seize an individual soldier, try him, convict him, and 
execute him; sir, should we not declare war at once, or make 
war? Would this be submitted to for a moment? Is there a 
man, with an American heart in his bosom, who would keep 
still, and be silent, in the face of such an outrage on public law, 
and such an insult to the flag and sovereignty of his country? 
Who would endure that an American soldier, acting in obedi- 
ence to lawful authority, and with the eagle and the stars and 
stripes over his head, should be arrested, tried, and executed 
as a private murderer? Sir, if we had received such an insult, 
and atonement had not been instantly made, we should have 
avenged it at any expense of treasure and of blood. A manly 
feeling of honor and character, therefore, a sense of justice, and 
respect for the opinion of the civilized world, a conviction of 
what would have been our own conduct in a like case, all called 
on General Harrison to do exactly what he did. 

England had assumed her proper responsibility, and what 
was it? She had made an aggression upon the United States 
by entering her territory for a belligerent purpose. She had 
invaded the sanctity of our territorial rights. As to the mere 
destruction of the vessel, if perpetrated on the Canadian side, 
it would have been quite justifiable. The persons engaged in 
that vessel were, it is to be remembered, violating the laws of 
their own country, as well as the law of nations ; some of them 
suffered for that offense, and I wish all had suffered. 

Mr. Allen here desired to know where the proof was of the 
fact that the Caroline was so engaged. Was there any record 
of the fact? 

Mr. Webster. Yes, there is proof — -abundant proof. The 
fact that the vessel was so engaged was, I believe, pretty well 
proved on the trial and conviction of Van Rensselaer. But, 
besides, there is abundant proof in the Department of State, in 
the evidence taken in Canada by the authorities there, and sent 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 279 

to Great Britain, and which could be confirmed by any body 
who lived any where from Buffalo down to Schlosser. It was 
proved by the 7-es gestce. What was the condition and conduct 
of the Caroline? Mr. Stevenson, making the best case he 
could for the United States, said that she was cleared out at 
Buffalo, in the latter part of December, to ply between Buffalo 
and Schlosser, on the same side of the river, a few miles below. 
Lord Palmerston, with his usual sarcasm, and with more than 
a usual occasion for the application of that sarcasm, said, *' It 
was very true she was cleared out; but Mr. Stevenson forgot 
that she was also ' cut out' of the ice in which she had been 
laid up for the winter ; and that, in departing from Buffalo, in- 
stead of going down to Schlosser, she went down to Navy Isl- 
and ;" and his lordship asked, " What new outbreak of traffic 
made it necessary to have a steam-boat plying, in the depth of 
winter, between Buffalo and Schlosser, when exactly between 
those two places on the shore there was a very convenient rail- 
road?" I will most respectfully suggest all this to the consid- 
eration of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. 
And, as further evidence, I will state the entire omission of the 
government of the United States, during the whole of Mr. Van 
Buren's administration, to make any demand for reparation for 
the property destroyed. So far as I remember, such a sugges- 
tion was never made. But one thing I do very well remember, 
and that is, that a person who had some interest in the property 
came to the city of Washington, and thought of making an ap"- 
plication to the government, in the time of Mr. Van Buren, for 
indemnity. 

Well, lie was told that the sooner he shut his mouth on that 
subject the better, for he himself, knowing that the purpose to 
which the vessel was to be applied came within the purview 
of the statutes of the United States against fitting out hostile 
expeditions against countries with which the United States 
were at peace, was liable to prosecution ; and he ever after- 
ward, profiting by this friendly admonition, held his peace. 
That was another piece of evidence which I respectfully sub- 
mit to the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

Well, sir, M'Leod's case went on in the court of New York, 
and I was utterly surprised at the decision of that court on the 
habeas corpus. On the peril and at the risk of my professional 
reputation, I now say, that the opinion of the court of New 
York in that case is not a respectable opinion, either on account 
of the result at which it arrives, or the reasoning on which it 
proceeds.* 

* This opinion has been ably and learnedly reviewed by Judge Tullnmdge, of 
the Superior Court of the City of New York. Of this review, the late Chief jus- 
tice Spencer says, " It refutes and overthrows the opinion most amply." Chan- 



280 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

M'Leod was tried and acquitted, there being no proof that 
he had killed Durfree. Congress afterward passed an act, that 
if such cases should arise hereafter, they should be immediately 
transferred to the courts of the United States. That was a 
necessary and a proper law. It was requisite, in order to en- 
able the government of the United States to maintain the peace 
of the country. And it was perfectly constitutional; because 
it is a just and important principle — quite a fundamental princi- 
ple, indeed — that the judicial power of the general government 
should be co-extensive with its legislative and executive pow- 
ers. When the authority and duty of this government is to be 
judicially discussed and decided, "that decision must be in the 
courts of the United States, or else that which holds the govern- 
ment together would become a band of straw. M'Leod having 
been acquitted, this result put an end to all question concerning 
his case ; and Congress having passed a law providing for such 
cases in future, it only remained that a proper explanation and 
apology — all that a nation of high honor could ask, or a nation 
of high honor could give — should be obtained for the violation 
of territorial sovereignty ; and that was obtained. Not obtain- 
ed in Mr. Van Buren's" time, but obtained, concurrently with 
the settlement of other questions, in 1842. 

Before Mr. Fox's letter was answered, sir, the President had 
directed the attorney-general to proceed to New York, with 
copies of the official correspondence, and with instructions to 
signify to the Governor of New York the judgment which had 
been formed here. These instructions have been referred to, 
and they are public. The moment was critical. A mob had 
arrested' judicial proceedings on the frontier. The trial of 
M-Leod was expected to come on immediately at Lockport ; 
and what would be the fate of the prisoner, between the opin- 
ions entertained inside of the court-house, and lawless violence 
without, no one could foresee. The instructions were in the 
spirit of the answer to Mr. Fox's letter. And I now call on 
the honorable member from New York to furnish authority for 
his charge, made in his speech the other day, that the govern- 
ment of the United States had "interfered, directly and palpa- 
bly," with the proceedings of the courts of New York. It is 
untrue. He has no authority, not a particle, for any such state- 
ment. All that was done was made public. He has no other 
authority for what he said than the public papers ; they do not 
bear him out. To say, on the ground of what is public, that 
the government of the United States interfered, "directly and 

cellor Kent says of it. " It is conclusive upon every point. I should have been 
proud if I hadbeen the author of it." The opinion of the Supreme Court of New 
York is not likely to be received, at home or abroad, as the American under- 
standing of an important principle of public law. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 2S1 

palpably " with the proceedings in New York, is not only un- 
true, but ridiculous. There was no demand for the delivery 
of M'Leod to the United States ; there was no attempt to arrest 
the proceedings of the New York court. Mr. Fox was told 
that these proceedings must go on until they were judicially 
terminated ; that M'Leod was in confinement by judicial pro- 
cess, and could only be released by judicial process under the 
same authority. All this is plainly stated in Mr. Crittenden's 
instructions, and no man who reads that paper can fall into 
any mistake about it. There was no " direct and palpable" in- 
terference with the New York courts, nor any interference at 
all. The Governor of New York did not think there was, nor 
did any body else ever think there was. 

Mr. President, the honorable senator from Ohio (Mr. Allen) 
bestowed, I believe, a very considerable degree of attention 
upon topics connected with the Treaty of Washington. It so 
happened that my engagements did not permit me to be in the 
Senate during the delivery of any considerable portion of that 
speech. I was in occasionally, however, and heard some parts 
of it. I have not been able to find any particular account of 
the honorable member's remarks. In the only printed speech 
which I have been able to lay my hands on, it is said that he 
took occasion to speak, in general terms, of various topics — 
enumerating them — embraced in the treaty of 1S42. As I have 
not seen those remarks, I shall not now undertake to make any 
further allusion to them. If I should happen to see them here- 
after, so far as I may believe that they have not been answered 
by what I have already said, or may now say, I may. perhaps, 
deem it worth while to embrace some opportunity of taking 
such notice of them as to me they may seem to require. 

Air. Allen. I will now state, for the satisfaction of the sena- 
tor, the general substance of what I said on the subject. If he 
so desires, I will now proceed to do so. 

Mr. Webster. I think that, upon the whole, when the gentle- 
man shall furnish the public with a copy of his speech, I may, 
perhaps, have a more proper opportunity to pay attention to 
it. especially as I have to say something of other speeches, 
which may at present occupy as much of the time of the Sen- 
ate as can well be devoted to this subject. And now. sir. paulo 
major a canamus. 

An honorable member from New York nearest the chair 
(Mr. Dickinson) made a speech on this subject. I propose to 
take some notice of that speech. But first I must remark, that 
the honorable gentleman did not seem to be satisfied with his 
own light: he borrowed somewhat extensivelv. He borrow- 
ed, and incorporated into his speech, by way of a note, what 
he entitles, " Extracts from the Speech of Mr. C.J.Ingersoll in 



282 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

the House of Representatives." Well, then, my first business is 
to examine a little this jewel which the honorable gentleman 
chooses to work into his own diadem ; and I shall do it un- 
moved in temper, I hope, and, at the same time, I do not mean 
to omit what I may consider a proper notice of the whole of it, 
and all its parts. And here, sir, is that extraordinary ebulli- 
tion, called by the honorable senator "the speech of Mr. C. J. 
Ingersoll in the House of Representatives." 

Mr. President, I almost wish I could find myself out of order 
in referring to it, as I imagine I should be if it had not been that 
the honorable member has made it his own and a part of his 
speech. I should be very glad to be compelled not to take any 
notice of it — to be told that I was not at liberty to know that 
such a speech was ever made ; and should thank God to know 
that such an ebullition had never been made out of a bar-room 
any where — and that's a theater quite too high for it. Now, 
sir, a large portion of this "speech" seems to be directed against 
the individual now addressing the Senate. I will read its parts 
and parcels, and take such notice of them as they deserve as I 
go along. Hear what the New York member says : 

" Mr. Dickinson had understood there was a correspondence between the au- 
thorities at Washington and the Governor of New York to that effect; but he par- 
ticularly alluded to a letter addressed by Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, to Mr. 
Crittenden, Attorney-general at that time, directing him to proceed to New York 
and take charge of the trial of M'Leod. He had it not then before him, and did 
not recollect its precise language, but would refer to it before he should close. 
He would endeavor to speak of the history of the past truly, and in perfect kind- 
ness, but he wished to show what we had gained by negotiations with Great 
Britain, and who had made the concessions." 

Now, sir, either by way of giving interest to this narrative, 
or something else, the gentleman from New York makes this a 
little more distinct. He savs not onlv that Mr. Webster wrote 
this letter to the Governor of New York with his own hand, 
but that he sent it by express. I believe the "express" matter 
was expressly by the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. Dickinson. Will you allow me? 

Mr. Webster. Oh ! yes, I will allow you. 

Mr. Dickinson. The gentleman from New York is not at all 
responsible for the statement in the note. Nor does the gen- 
tleman from New York make the extracts from Mr. Ingersoll's 
speech any part of his ; on the contrary, I stated expressly, at 
the time, that I alluded to it as a very extraordinary statement. 
Having met with the emphatic contradiction of the honorable 
senator from Massachusetts, or what implied contradiction, I 
proposed to read in justification the remarks of Mr. Ingersoll. 
The friends of the senator in his immediate vicinity objected to 
have it read. I did not read the extract, nor was it in the re- 
port of my speech, which, in the usual t way, found its way to 
the newspapers. But, as J had repeated calls for what I had 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 283 

alluded to as spoken by Mr. Ingersoll, I did append, in the 
pamphlet edition of my speech, those remarks. I gave them as 
they were found in the newspaper, and therefore the senator 
from New York neither added to nor diminished these remarks. 
I wish to set the senator right as to this single matter of fact. 

Mr. Webster. I have only to state the fact that the additional 
falsehood in the speech of Mr. Ingersoll, as published by the 
member from New York, is not to be found in the published 
report. 

Mr. Dickinson. In what paper ? 

Mr. Webster. In the National Intelligencer, as corrected by 
Mr. Ingersoll himself; and so it would appear that if not in- 
serted by the member from New York, there is one falsehood 
in the case which the original author was not so graceless as to 
retain. But I go on with this speech : 

" Out of this controversy arose the arrest of Alexander M'Leod. What he in- 
tended to state now consisted of facts not yet generally known, but which would 
soon be made known, for they were in progress of publication, and he had re- 
ceived them in confidence from the best authority. When M'Leod was arrest- 
ed, General Harrison had just died, and Mr. Tyler was not yet at home as his 
successor. Mr. Webster, who was de facto the administration — Mr. Webster 
wrote to the Governor of New York, with his own hand, a letter, and sent it by 
express, marked ' private,' in which the governor was told that he must release 
M'Leod, or see the magnificent commercial emporium laid in ashes. The brill- 
iant description given by the gentleman from Virginia of the prospective destruc- 
tion of that city in the case of a war was, in a measure, anticipated on this occa- 
sion. M'Leod must be released, said the Secretary of State, or New York must 
be laid in ashes. The governor asked when this would be done. The reply 
was, forthwith. Do you not see coming on the waves of the sea the Paixhan 
guns ? and if M'Leod be not released, New York will be destroyed. But, said 
the governor, the power of pardon is vested in me, and even if he be convicted, 
he may be pardoned. Oh, no, said the secretary ; if you even try him, you will 
bring destruction on yourselves." 

Well, now, sir, I say that a series of more direct, unalloyed 
falsehoods — absolute, unqualified, entire — never appeared in 
any publication in Christendom. Every allegation here made 
— every one, would entirely justify the use of that expressive 
monosyllable, which some people are base enough and low- 
enough to deserve to have thrown in their teeth, but which a 
gentleman does not often like to utter. Every one of them, 
from beginning to end, is false. There is not a particle of truth 
in them ; there is not the slightest foundation for any one of 
these assertions. "Mr. Webster wrote a private letter," say- 
ing that the " commercial emporium would be laid in ashes !" 
"Paixhan guns !" False, sir! all false! I never said or wrote 
such a thing in my life to the Governor of the State of New 
York. " M'Leod must be released." It is false ! I never 
said any such thing. " New York must be laid in ashes." It 
is false ! I said or wrote no such thing. " The governor asked 
when this was to be done." What does this mean? Why, it 
implies that' the Governor of New York wrote to me a letter, 



284 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

in answer to mine, inquiring when New York was to be " laid 
in ashes," and the reply was, " forthwith." And here we have 
this — Mr. Ingersoll himself preparing this speech for the press, 
italicizing the word forthwith, as if I had written another letter 
to the Governor of New York, "telling him" that New York 
was to be laid in ashes "forthwith' 1 " But, said the governor, 
the power of pardon is vested in me, and if he be convicted, he 
may be pardoned." Here is another letter — a third letter to 
me ! " Oh, no, said the secretary" — why, here I am writing a 
fourth letter ! — "if you even try him, you will bring destruction 
upon yourselves." This is stated by a man, or a thing ! that 
has a seat in one of the houses of Congress. I promised to 
keep my temper, and I will. The whole concern is infinitely 
contemptible, and can not disturb the temper of a reasonable 
man. But I will expose it, and let the country see it. Such, 
then, are the contents of the letters which this person describes 
as " facts not generally known, but which would soon be made 
known, for they were in progress of publication, and he had 
received them in confidence from the best authority." Well, I 
do not know where he got his " authority," unless, as suggested 
by a friend near me, it was from some chapters of his own re- 
cent work ! But let me state what did occur, and prepare the 
minds of the Senate for some degree of astonishment, that any 
man in the world could tell such a story as this. 

When M'Leod was arrested, there was a good deal of con- 
versation in Washington and elsewhere about what would 
happen. It was a subject of very considerable interest, and 
certainly of embarrassment to the government. It was hoped 
and expected by me, and I believe by the President and other 
gentlemen, that the Governor of New York would see that it 
was a case in which, if he were invested with authority by the 
Constitution and the laws of the state, he would recommend 
the entering of a nolle prosequi by the prosecuting officer of 
the State of New York. It was expected that he would do that, 
and General Harrison one day said to me that he had received 
a letter from a friend, in which he was informed that the Gov- 
ernor of New York had made up his mind to take that course, 
and that he was very glad of it, as it relieved this government. 
It was about the time that the attorney-general was to proceed 
to New York to see how the matter stood, or perhaps a day or 
two after he had left. The case was to be tried immediately, 
within ten days, at Lockport, in the western part of the State 
of New York. Having heard this, however, General Harrison 
directed me to write a note of thanks to the Governor of New 
York, stating that he thought he had done exactly what was 
proper, and by so doing had relieved the government from 
some embarrassment, and the country from so.me danger of 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 285 

collision with a foreign power. And that is every thing said 
in that letter, or any other letter written by me to the Governor 
of the State of New York, marked private. The letter is here, 
if anv one wishes to see it, or to hear it read. 

Mr. Crittenden here suggested that the letter should be read. 

Mr. Webster. Very well. Here it is : I will read it. 

(Private.) Department of State, Washington, March 17, 1841. 

My dear Sir, — The President has learned, not directly, but by means of a let- 
ter from a friend, that you had expressed a disposition to direct a nolle prosequi 
in the case of the indictment against M'Leod, on being informed by this govern- 
ment that the British government has officially avowed the attack on the Caroline 
as an act done by its own authority. The President directs me to express his 
thanks for the promptitude with which you appear disposed to perform an act 
which he supposes proper for the occasion, and which is calculated to relieve thi3 
government from embarrassment, and the country from some danger of collision 
with a foreign power. 

You will have seen Mr. Crittenden, whom I take this occasion to commend to 
vour kindest regard. 

I have the honor to be, yours truly, Daniel Webster. 

His Excellency Wm. H. Seward, Governor of New York. 

Mr. Mangum. Was that the only letter written ? 

Mr. Webster. Yes, the only letter — the only private letter 
ever written by me to the Governor of New York in the world. 
Now, how am I to treat such allegations ? It is the falsehood 
"with circumstance." A general statement might pass unre- 
garded ; but here he quotes what he calls " the highest au- 
thority." He states particulars. He gives all possible plausi- 
ble marks of credit to the falsehood. How am I to treat it? 
Why, sir, I pronounce it an utter, an absolute falsehood, in all 
its parts, from beginning to end. Now, I do not wish to use 
epithets, nor to call names ; but I hold up this picture, which I 
have painted faintly, but truly — I hold it up to every man in 
the Senate and in the country, and I ask him to look at it, and 
then write at the bottom of it any thing which he thinks it most 
resembles. 

The speech proceeds : " The next step taken by the admin- 
istration was to appoint a district attorney, who was to be 
charged with the defense of Alexander M'Leod — the gentle- 
man who was lately removed from office — and a fee of five 
thousand dollars was put into his hands for this purpose." 
False, sir ! false, every way ! The government of the United 
States had no more to do with the employment of Mr. Spencer 
for the defense of M'Leod than had the government of France. 
Here [taking up the corrected report of Mr. I.'s speech in the 
Intelligencer] — here he says that, " enlightened by the gentle- 
man from New York, he found he was mistaken on this point." 
" Mistaken !" No more mistaken than he w r as in any of his 
other allegations. "Mistaken!" No man who makes such 
statements is entitled to shelter himself under any notion of 
mistake. His declaration in this particular is no more false, 



286 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

nor any less false, than is the declaration that the government 
of the United States appointed an attorney, or charged their 
attorney with the defense of M'Leod. They never interfered 
in the slightest degree. It is true, they furnished to Mr. Spen- 
cer, as they would have furnished to any other counsel, the 
official correspondence, to prove that the government of Great 
Britain avowed the act of the destruction of the Caroline as 
their own. "Application was afterward made to the chief 
justice of the State of New York for the release of M'Leod. 
The judge did not think proper to grant the application. The 
marshal was about to let him go, when he was told that he 
must do it at his peril ; and that if M'Leod went out of prison, 
he should go in." I do not know what the marshal had to do 
with the case. M'Leod was in prison under the authority of 
the State of New York. I do not know how it was possible 
that the marshal, an officer of the L T nited States, could interfere. 
But there are some other matters in the speech to which I 
must refer. " He would call on the honorable member from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) to sustain him in what he was 
about to say." I do not find that the honorable member from 
Massachusetts has yet sustained him in these statements, and I 
rather think he never will. He asserts that I wrote to the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House on that subject, 
asking an outfit and a salary for a special minister to England 
to settle the Oregon Question. It is a falsehood, as I believe. 
I never wrote such a letter, to the best of my recollection. 
" These are facts," he says, " which no one will dispute." I 
dispute them ! I say I have no recollection of them at all. I do 
not believe Mr. Adams has any recollection of any such note 
being written by me. If I had written such a note, I think I 
should have remembered it. Well, now, this person next pro- 
ceeds to a topic no way connected with what he had been dis- 
cussing. [Here Mr. Webster read an extract from the speech 
of Mr. Ingersoll, charging him (Mr. Webster) with offering to 
give Oregon for free trade with England, in a speech made at 
a public dinner in Baltimore, May, 1843.] Here by me sits a 
senator from Maryland (Mr. Johnson) who was present at that 
dinner, and heard that speech, and if I wanted a witness be- 
yond my own statement and printed speech, I could readily call 
upon him. In that speech I did not mention Oregon, nor allude 
to Oregon in the remotest degree. It is an utter falsehood ! 
There can be no mistake about it. The author of this speech 
(Mr. Ingersoll) was not there. If he knew any thing about it, 
he must have acquired his knowledge from the printed speech; 
but in that there was not the slightest reference to Oregon: 
this is another statement, therefore, just as false as all the rest. 
Why, sir, hydrostatic pressure has no means of condensing any 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 287 

thing into such a narrow compass as the author of this speech 
condenses falsehood. All steam power does not equal it. 
What does he say here? Why, that my speech at Baltimore 
contained a strong recommendation of a commercial treaty 
with England. Why, sir, a commercial treaty with England 
to regulate the subjects upon which I was talking at Baltimore 
— the duties laid on goods by the two countries — was just the 
thing that I did not recommend, and which I there declared 
the treaty-making power had no right to make — no authority 
to make. He would represent me as holding out the idea that 
the power of laying duties for revenue was a power that could 
be freely exercised by the President and Senate, as part of the 
treaty-making power ! Why, I hope that I know more of the 
Constitution than that. The ground I took was just the re- 
verse of that — exactly the reverse. Sir, my correspondence, 
public and private, with England, at that time led me to antici- 
pate, before long, some change in the policy of England with 
respect to certain articles, the produce of this country — some 
change with respect to the policy of the corn laws. And I 
suggested in that speech how very important it would be, if 
things should so turn out, as that that great product of ours, the 
Indian corn, of which we raised five times as much as we do 
of wheat — principally the product of the West and Southwest, 
especially of the State of Tennessee, which raised annually I 
do not know how many millions — I suggested, I say, the great 
good fortune that would happen if an arrangement could be 
made by which that article of human food could be freely im- 
ported into England. And I said that, in the spirit that pre- 
vailed, and which I knew prevailed — I knew that the topic had 
been discussed in England — if an arrangement could be made 
in some proper manner to produce such a result, it would be a 
piece of great good fortune. But, then, did I not immediately 
proceed to say that that could not be done by treaty? I used 
the word " arrangement" — studiously used it — to avoid the 
conclusion that it could be done by treaty. I will read what I 
?aid : 

" But with regard to the direct intercourse between us and England, great in- 
terest is excited, many wishes expressed, and strong opinions entertained, in fa- 
vor of an attempt to settle duties on certain articles by treaty or arrangement. I 
say, gentlemen, by ' arrangement,' and I use that term by design. The Consti- 
tution of the United States leaves with Congress the great business of laying du- 
ties to support the government. It has made it the duty of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, the popular branch of the government, to take the lead on such sub- 
jects. There have been some few cases in which treaties have been entered 
into, having the effect to limit duties ; but it is not necessary — and that is an im- 
portant part of the whole subject — it is not necessary to go upon the idea that 
if we come to an understanding with foreign governments upon rates ol duties, 
that understanding can be effected only by means of a treaty ratified by the Pres- 
ident and two thirds of the Senate, according to the form of the Constitution. 



288 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

" It is true a treaty is the law of the land. But, then, as the whole business of 
revenue and general provision for all the wants of the country is undoubtedly a 
very peculiar business of the House of Representatives or of Congress, I am of 
opinion, and always have been, that there should be no encroachment upon that 
power by the exercise of the treaty-making power, unless in case of great and 
evident necessity." 

There have been some cases of necessity, like that of France 
in the case of Louisiana. And yet he says that in this speech, 
in which Oregon was not mentioned at all, in which I repudia- 
ted altogether the levying of revenue by the treaty-making 
power, that I recommended a treaty with England in this very 
speech for the purpose of laying duties. Sir, I grow weary — 
weary with this tissue of falsehoods. Why should I allude to 
representations and imputations so groundless? And yet, sir, 
there is one thing in the speech from which I will supplicate 
its author to have me excused. He says he never agreed with 
me in politics. That is true. We never did, and I think we 
never shall agree. He said, many years ago, that if he had 
lived in the time of the Revolution, he should have been a Tory. 
I do not think I should. He has said, also, very recently, in a 
printed book of his, that the Declaration of Independence was 
carried with great difficulty, if not by accident. That is his 
estimate of the great charter of our national existence. We 
should never agree in politics, I admit. But he said, " Mr. 
Webster is a man of talents." Here I beg to be excused. I 
can bear his abuse, but if he undertakes my commendation, I 
begin to tremble for my reputation. 

Sir, it would be natural to ask, what can account for all this 
apparent malice? Sir, I am not certain there is any malice in 
it. I think it proceeds rather from a moral obtuseness, a native 
want of discrimination between truth and falsehood ; or that, if 
there ever was a glimmering perception of that kind, a long dis- 
cipline in that sublime school of morality, which teaches that 
"all's fair in politics," appears to have completely obscured it. 

Hear him further on the dismemberment of Massachusetts: 
"By this treaty," he said, "the good old Bay State, which he 
loved with filial reverence, was disintegrated — torn asunder." 
"Massachusetts torn asunder !" Sir, Massachusetts owned one 
half of certain wild lands in Maine. By the Treaty of Wash- 
ington, she parted with these lands, at their just value, and by 
this she is represented as disintegrating herself — tearing herself 
asunder! Can absurdity go further? But the best, or the 
worst, of all is, that the author of this speech loves the old Bay 
State with filial reverence ! He love Massachusetts ! He! he 
love the Bay State! If he loves Massachusetts, he is like the 
luckless swain who 

" Grieves for friendship unreturued, 
Or unregarded love." 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 289 

I can tell him, sir, that Massachusetts and all her people, of 
all classes, hold him, and his love, and his veneration, and his 
speeches, and his principles, and his standard of truth, and his 
value of truth, in utter — what shall I say? — any thing but re- 
spect. 

Sir, this person's mind is so grotesque, so bizarre — it is rather 
the caricature of a mind than a mind. When we see a man of 
some knowledge and some talent, who is yet incapable of pro- 
ducing any thing true or useful, we sometimes apply to him a 
phrase borrowed from the mechanics — we say there is a screw 
loose somewhere. In this case, the screws are loose all over. 
The whole machine is out of order, disjointed, rickety, crazy, 
creaking, as often upside down as upside up ; as often hurting 
as helping those who use it, and generally incapable of any 
thincr but bunG-linsr and mischief. 

Mr. President, I will now take some further notice of what 
has been said by the member from New York (Mr. Dickinson). 
I exceedingly regret — truly and unfeignedly regret — that the 
observations of the gentleman make it my duty to take some 
notice of them. Our acquaintance is but short, but it has not 
been unpleasant. I always thought him a man of courteous 
manners and kind feelings, but it can not be expected I shall 
sit here and listen to statements such as the honorable member 
has made on this question, and not answer them. I repeat, it 
gives me great pain to take notice of the gentleman's speech. 
This controversy is not mine ; all can bear witness to that. I 
have not undertaken to advance, of my own accord, a single 
word about the Treaty of Washington. I am forced — driven 
to it ; and, sir, when I am driven to the wall, I mean to stand 
up and make battle, even against the most formidable odds. 
What I find fault with is, that throughout his speech, the honor- 
able member continually makes the remark that he is true to the 
history of the past ; he wishes to tell the truth, that he is mak- 
ing a search after truth, and yet makes, in fact, so much mis- 
statement. If this be a specimen of the honorable senator's re- 
searches after truth, a collection of his researches would be a 
very amusing compilation. If the honorable member, during 
the relaxation from his duties here, would put his researches to- 
gether, I undertake to say they would sell well. The Harpers 
would make half a fortune out of them. The people of the 
United States will pay well for what gives them a good, hearty 
laugh; and it is no matter, if that effect be produced, whether 
it be by a story by Dickens, by a caricature from Punch, or a 
volume of "researches after truth" by an honorable member 
from New York. 

Now, sir, I propose to follow the honorable member a few 
steps in the course of his researches. I have already said that 

T 



290 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

in two or three passages of his speech the gentleman expresses 
his strong desire to slate the facts. [Here Mr. Webster read 
a quotation from the speech of Mr. Dickinson.] He says there 
are four things we have lost by the Treaty of Washington. I 
do not readily find the passages, but the amount is, that we 
made a very important concession of territory to England under 
that treaty. Now, that treaty proposed to be a treaty of con- 
cession on both sides. The gentleman states concessions made 
by the United States, but entirely forgets, " in his researches 
after truth," to state those made on the other side. He takes 
no notice of the cession of Rouse's Point ; or of a strip of land 
a hundred miles long, on the border of the State of New York. 
His notion of historical truth is. to state all on one side of the 
story, and forget all the rest. That is a system of research aft- 
er truth which will hardly commend itself to the respect of 
most men. But, sir, what I wish principally to do now, is to 
turn to another part of this speech. I before gave the gentle- 
man notice that I would call upon him for the authority upon 
which he made such a statement, as that an attempt was made 
at Washington by members of the government to stop the 
course of justice ; and now, if the gentleman is ready with the 
proofs, I would be glad to have them. 

Mr. Dickinson. I will reserve what I have to say until the 
gentleman has done, when I shall produce it to his satisfaction. 

Mr. Webster. I undertake to say, no authority will be pro- 
duced, or is producible, that there were attempts made at Wash- 
ington to interfere with the trial of M'Leod. What occurred? 
It was suggested by the President to Governor Seward, that the 
President was gratified that he had come to the conclusion to 
enter a nolle prosequi in the case of M'Leod. Was that a pal- 
pable interference with judicial authority? Was that a resist- 
ance of the ordinary process of law? The government of the 
United States had nothing at all to do with the trial of M'Leod 
in the New York courts, except to see that he was furnished 
with the proof of facts necessary to show his defense. But I 
wish to know in what school the gentleman has been taught 
that if a man is in prison, and his counsel moves to have him 
brought up on the great writ of habeas corpus, that that is any 
resistance of judicial process in favor of the prisoner? I dare 
say the honorable gentleman, among his authorities, can pro- 
duce none to show such to be an interference. He may call 
what he likes a direct and palpable interference. He may ap- 
ply the term to the journey of the attorney-general to Albany, 
or to any other act or occurrence. But that does not prove it 
so. I hold the gentleman responsible to prove that the govern- 
ment did some act, or acts, which the common sense of men 
holds to be a palpable and direct interference. I say there was 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 291 

none. He quotes the letter of instructions to the attorney- gen- 
eral. That proposes no interference. That letter says'to the 
attorney-general, that if the case were pending in the courts of 
the United States, so that the President could have control over 
it, he would direct the prosecuting officer to enter a nolle pros- 
equi; but as it belonged entirely to the Governor of New York, 
it is referred to the governor himself. That is the substance, 
in this respect, of the letter which the attorney-general carried 
to the Governor of New York, and there was not another act 
done by authority at Washington in reference to this matter. 
and I call upon the gentleman at his leisure to produce his au- 
thority for his statements. One word more in answer to the 
remarks the gentleman made this morning, and I shall leave 
him. The ebullition which I have been commenting upon, and 
which is as black and foul-mouthed as ever was ejected from 
any thing standing on two legs, was published a few days be- 
fore the honorable member from New York made his speech. 
He referred to it, and stated a fact contained in it. 

I was here in my seat, and heard it, and I rose and told the 
honorable member it was an utter falsehood. He knew I de- 
nounced it as an absolute calumny. He saw on the face of 
that statement that, if it was true, it was utterly disgraceful to 
me. It was, he said, disgraceful to the country, what was 
done ; and if it was disgraceful to the country, it must be so to 
me. I stated my denial of the truth of that speech of Mr. In- 
gersoll in the strongest terms — in the most emphatic language. 
What then ? The very next day he proceeded to read that 
speech in the Senate ; but it was objected to, and was not read. 
But afterward, as he tells us, he sent his own speech to press, 
and inserted this speech of Ingersoll, knowing that I had pro- 
nounced it a falsehood. Yes, miserable, calumnious, and scan- 
dalous as it was, he snatched at it eagerly, and put it in his own 
speech, and then circulated it to the full extent of his ability. 
I happened to come into this chamber one day when the Senate 
was not in session, and found our agents and messengers frank- 
ing and directing that speech to all parts of New York ; and I 
do not doubt that enough of it was sent by him into Broome 
county, and the adjacent counties, to fill a small barn ; and 
pretty bad fodder it would be. And now I beg to know if that 
is friendly, candid, or just ? Does any man think he can stand 
up here with the proper dignity of a senator of the United 
States, and pursue such a course ? He knew the speech he 
quoted was calumnious He heard it pronounced utterly false. 

Mr. Dickinson. Onl i one single point in it was answered or 
denied by the senator. That was, that the fee of the attorney- 
general was not paid by the government of the United States. 
I referred to the statements because I had a rght to do it, and 
thinking it was part of my duty. 



£92 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

Mr. Webster. I do not say what a man has a right to do — 

Mr. Dickinson. As a matter of propriety, then — 

Mr. Webster. Well, I say it was not proper to do it. Sup- 
pose I had dragged out of a ditch some calumny on the gentle- 
man which he denied, would it be proper in me to persist in it 
after that denial ? 

Mr. Dickinson. The speech quoted was documentary matter, 
and I had a right and full liberty to lay such before the country. 

Mr. Webster. That is true of documentary history, but when 
did that speech become documentary history? 

Mr. Dickinson. It was considered so by me, because it was 
printed, and went to the public from an official source. 

Mr. Webster. Indeed! So any falsehood, any vile calumny, 
that is raked up, no matter what it is, if printed, is "document- 
ary history !" The gentleman's own speech, according to that, 
is already documentary history ! Now, sir, I repeat again, that 
it has given me pain to be driven into this controversy — great 
pain ; but I repeat, also, that if I am attacked here for any thing 
done in the course of my public life, I shall defend myself. My 
public reputation, be it what it may, has been earned by thirty 
years' service in these halls. It is dearer to me than life itself, 
and till life is extinct I will defend it. 

I will now allude, Mr. President, as briefly as possible, to 
some other provisions of the Treaty of Washington. The ar- 
ticle for the delivery of fugitives from justice has been assailed. 
It has been said that an innocent woman had been sent back 
to Scotland under its provisions. Why, I believe the fact is, 
that a woman had murdered her husband, or some relative in 
Scotland, and fled to this country. She was pursued, demand- 
ed, and carried back, and from some defect in the ordinary 
regularity of evidence, or some such cause, which not unfre- 
quently occurs in criminal trials, she was acquitted. But, sir, 
I undertake to say, that the article for the extradition of offend- 
ers, contained in the treaty of 1842, if there were nothing else 
in the treaty of any importance, has of itself been of more value 
to this country, and is of more value to the progress of civiliza- 
tion, the cause of humanity, and the good understanding be- 
tween nations, than could be readily computed. What was 
the state and condition of this country, sir, on the borders and 
frontiers, at the time of this treaty ? Why, it was the time 
when the " patriot societies" or " Hunters' Lodges" were all in 
operation — when companies were formed and officers appoint- 
ed by secret associations, to carry on the war in Canada ; and, 
as I have said already, the disturbances were so frequent and 
so threatening, that the United States government dispatched 
General Scott to the frontier to make a draught on New York 
for militia in order to preserve the peace of the border. And 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 293 

now, sir, what was it that repressed these disorders, and re- 
stored the peace of the border? Nothing, sir, nothing but a 
provision between the two governments, that if those "patriots" 
and "barn-burners" went from one side to the other to destroy 
their neighbors' property, trying to bring on a war all the time 
— for that was their object — they should be delivered up to be 
punished. As soon as that provision was agreed to, the dis- 
turbances ceased, on one side and on the other : they were heard 
of no more. In the formation of this clause of the treaty I had 
the advantage of consultation with a venerable friend near me, 

CD * 

one of the members from Michigan [Mr. Woodbridge]. He 
pressed me not to forego the opportunity of introducing some 
such provision. He examined it ; and I will ask him if he 
knows any other cause for the instantaneous suppression of 
these border difficulties than this treaty provision? 
Mr. Woodbridge rose, and said, in reply, as follows: 
Mr. President, I may not disregard the reference which the 
gentleman has done me the honor to make to me in regard to 
the inconsiderable part which I deemed it my duty to take in 
the matter alluded to. A brief statement of some facts which 
occurred, and a glance, simply, at the condition of that border 
country from which I come, will be all that the occasion seems 
to demand. 

That part of Canada with which the people of Michigan are 
brought more immediately in contact, extends from the head 
of Lake Erie to Point Edwards, at the lower extremity of Lake 
Theron, a distance of about 100 miles. Along this intermediate 
distance, the Straits of Detroit and of Sinclair furnish every 
imaginable facility for the escape of fugitives. For their entire 
length, the shores of those straits, on either side, exhibit lines 
of dense and continuous settlement. Their shores are lined, 
and their smooth surface covered with boats and vessels of all 
dimensions and descriptions, from the bark canoe to the steamer 
of a thousand tons. If the perpetrator of crime can reach a 
bark canoe or a light skiff', and detach himself from the shore, 
he may in a few minutes defy pursuit, for he will be within a 
foreign jurisdiction. In such a condition of things, no society 
can be safe unless there be some power to reclaim fugitives 
from justice. While your colonial government existed there, 
and its executive administration, under the control of this na- 
tional government, was in the hands of my honorable colleague, 
a conventional arrangement — informal, undoubtedly, in its 
character — was entered into by him with the authorities of Can- 
ada, sustained by local legislation on both sides, by which these 
evils were greatly lessened. When the present state govern- 
ment took the place of the territorial government, this arrange- 
ment of necessity ceased ; and then the evils alluded to were 



294 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

greatly aggravated, and became eminently dangerous. Shortly 
before the first session of Congress, at which I attended, after 
the inauguration of General Harrison, a very aggravated case 
of crime occurred, and its perpetrators, as usual, escaped into 
Canada. It was made the subject of an official communication 
to the State Legislature : and soon after my arrival here, I 
deemed it to be my duty to lay the matter before the Secretary 
of State, with a view to the adoption of some appropriate con- 
vention with Great Britain. 

The honorable senator — then Secretary of State — was 
pleased to receive the suggestion favorably, but suggested to 
me the expediency of obtaining, if practicable, the sense of the 
Senate on the subject. Accordingly, I afterward introduced a 
resolution here, having that object in view, and it was referred 
to the consideration of the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
of which an honorable senator from Virginia, not now a mem- 
ber of the Senate, was chairman. 

Mr. Rives expressed himself very decidedly in favor of the 
proposition. But, negotiations having been begun, or being 
about to commence, with Lord Ash burton, it was not deemed 
expedient, I believe, that it should then be made matter of dis- 
cussion in the Senate. I had not ceased to feel very earnest 
solicitude on the subject ; and, as the negotiation approached 
its termination, Mr. Webster did me the honor to send me the 
project of that article of the treaty which relates to the subject. 
He desired me to consider it, and to exhibit it, confidentially 
perhaps, to such senators as came from border states, for their 
consideration, and for such modification of its terms and scope 
as they might deem expedient. This I did. The form and 
scope of the article met, I believe, with the approbation of all 
to whom I showed it. Nor was any modification suggested, 
except, perhaps, one very immaterial one, suggested by an hon- 
orable senator from New York. Of all this I advised Mr. 
Webster, and the project became afterward an article of the 
treaty, with but little, if any variation. I believe I can throw 
no more light on the subject, sir. But the honorable senator, 
having intimated to me that, in his discussion of the subject, he 
might, perhaps, have occasion to refer to the part I took in the 
matter, I have provided myself with the copy of the message to 
the Legislature of Michigan, of which I had in the beginning 
made use, and which, in order to show the extent of the evil 
referred to, and the necessity w r hich existed for some treaty 
stipulation on the subject, I ask the secretary to read.* (The 



* The secretary here read an extract from Mr. Woodbridge, when Governor of 
Michigan, to the Legislature of that state, calling its attention earnestly to the fa- 
cilities which exist along the interior boundaries of the United States for the es- 
cape of fugitives from justice ; and saying, that a very recent occurrence, of the 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 295 

extract having been read, Mr. Woodbridge then proceeded) : I 
have now only to add my entire and unqualified conviction, 
that no act of the legislative or treaty-making power that I 
have ever known, has ever been more successful in its opera- 
tion than this article of the treaty ; nor could any provision 
have been attended by more happy consequences upon the 
peace and safety of society in that remote frontier. 

Mr. Webster resumed. I am happy to find that, in its opera- 
tion, the provision has satisfied those who felt an interest in its 
adoption. But I may now state, I suppose without offense and 
without cavil, that since the negotiation of this treaty, contain- 
ing this article, we have negotiated treaties with other govern- 
ments of Europe containing similar provisions, and that between 
other governments of Europe themselves, treaties have been 
negotiated containing that provision : a provision never before 
known to have existed in any of the treaties between European 
nations. I am happy to see, therefore, that it has proved itself 
to be useful to the citizens of the United States, for whose 
benefit it was devised and adopted ; that it has proved itself 
worthy of favor and imitation in the judgment of the most en- 
lightened nations of Europe ; and that it has never been com- 
plained of by any body, except by murderers, and fugitives, and 
felons themselves. 

Now, sir, comes the matter of the African squadron, to which 
I am induced to turn my attention for a moment, out of sincere 
respect to the member from Arkansas [Mr. Sevier], who sug- 
gested the other day that to that article he hac objection. 
There is no man whose opinions are more independent than 
those of that gentleman, and no one maintains them with more 
candor. But, if I understood him, he appears to think that that 
article gave up the right of search. What does he mean ? We 
never claimed that right. We had no such right to give up ; or 
does it mean exactly the opposite of what he says, that it yield- 
ed to England her claim of such right? No such thing. The 
arrangement made by this treaty was designed to carry into 
effect those stipulations in the Treaty of Ghent which we 
thought binding on us, as well as to effect an object important 
to this country, to the interests of humanity, and to the general 
cause of civilization throughout the world, without raising the 
difficulty of the right of search. The object of it was to ac- 
complish all that in a way that should avoid the possibility of 
subjecting our vessels, under any pretense, to the right of 
search. I will not dwell on this. But allow me to state the 

most painful and atrocious character, had compelled his own attention to it, aud 
recommending, in strong terms, that the peculiai- situation of Michigan, in this re- 
spect, should he laid before Congress, with a view of urging the expediency of 
some negotiation on the subject between the United States and England. 



29G DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

sentiments on this subject of persons in the service of the Unit- 
ed States abroad, whose opinions are entitled to respect. 
There is a letter sent to the Department of State by Mr. Whea- 
ton, dated Berlin, November 15th, 1842. [Mr. Webster read 
from this letter an extract expressive of the writer's approbation 
of this article of the treaty as particularly well adapted to the 
end proposed, and by which, for the first time, the policy of the 
United States in this respect might be said to have exercised 
a decided influence upon that of Europe. Vide Appendix.] 

I am quite willing (said Mr. Webster) to rest on this opinion 
of Mr. Wheaton as to the propriety and safety, the security and 
the wisdom of the article in this treaty respecting the suppres- 
sion of the African slave trade by a squadron of our own, 
against any little artillery that may be used against it here. I 
beg the gentleman's pardon, I did not allude to his opinion ; I 
have for him the highest respect. I was thinking of what is 
said in some of these " documents." But I need not stop here. 
Upon the appearance of this treaty between the United States 
and England, the leading states of Europe did, in fact, alter 
their whole policy on this subject. The treaty of 1841 between 
the Five Powers had not been ratified by France. There was 
so much opposition to it in France, on the ground that it gave 
the right of search to the English cruisers, that the king and 
M. Guizot, though the treaty was negotiated according to their 
instructions, did not choose to ratify it. I have stated the cause 
of popular indignation against it. Well, what was done ? I'll 
tell you. When this Treaty of Washington became known in 
Europe, the wise men of the two countries, who wished to do 
all they could to suppress the African slave trade, and to do it 
in a manner securing in the highest degree the immunity of the 
flag of either, and the supremacy of neither, agreed to abandon 
the quintuple treaty of 1841 — the unratified treaty : they gave 
it up. 

They adopted the Treaty of Washington as their model ; 
and I have now in my hand the Convention between France 
and England, signed in London on the 29th of May, 1845, the 
articles of which, in respect to the manner of putting an end to 
the slave trade, embody exactly the provisions contained in the 
Treaty of Washington. Thus* it is seen that France has bor- 
rowed", from the treaty stipulations between the United States 
and England, the mode of fulfilling her own duties and accom- 
plishing her own purpose, in perfect accordance with the im- 
munity of her flag. I need hardly say, sir, that France is the 
nation which was earliest, and has been most constantly wake- 
ful, in her jealousy of the supremacy of the maritime power of 
England. She has kept her eye on it, steadily, for centuries. 
The immunity of flags is a deep principle — it is a sentiment — 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 297 

one may almost say it is a passion, with all the people of 
France ; and France, jealous, quick of perception, thoroughly 
hostile to any extension of the right of maritime search or visit, 
under any pretenses whatever, has seen, in the example of the 
Treaty of Washington, a mode of fulfilling her duties, for the 
suppression of the African slave trade, without disturbing the 
most sensitive of all her fears. 

Allow me, sir, to read the 8th and 9th articles of the Treaty 
of Washington, and the 1st, 2d, and 3d articles of the Conven- 
tion between England and France. [Mr. Webster read these 
articles. Vide Appendix.] 

Mr. President, there is another topic on which I have to say 
a few words. It has been said that the Treaty of Washington, 
and the negotiations accompanying it, leave the great and in- 
teresting question of impressment where they found it. With 
all humility and modesty, I must beg to express my dissent 
from that opinion. I must be permitted to say, that the cor- 
respondence connected with the negotiation of that treaty, al- 
though impressment was not in the treaty itself, has, in the judg- 
ment of the world, or at least of considerable and respectable 
persons in the world, been regarded as not having left the ques- 
tion of impressment where it found it, but as having advanced 
the true doctrine in opposition to it to a higher and stronger 
foundation. The letter addressed on that subject from the De- 
partment of State to the British plenipotentiary, and his answer, 
are among the papers. I only wish the letter to be read. It re- 
cites the general history of the question between England and 
the United States. Lord Ashburton had no authority to make 
stipulations on the subject ; but that is a circumstance which I 
do not regret, because I do not deem the subject as one at all 
proper for treaty stipulation. [Mr. Webster here read extracts 
from the letter, and, among others, this :] 

" In the early disputes between the two governments, on this so-long contested 
topic, the distinguished person to whose hands were first intrusted the sealsof 
this department, declared, that ' the simplest rule will be, that the vessel being 
American, shall be evidence that the seamen on board are such.' 

" Fifty years' experience, the utter failure of many negotiations, and a careful 
reconsideration now had of the whole subject, at a moment when the passions 
are laid, and no present interest or emergency exists to bias the judgment, have 
fully convinced this government that this is not only the simplest and best, but the 
only rule which can be adopted and observed, consistently with the rights and 
honor of the United States, and the security of their citizens. That rule announ- 
ces, therefore, what will hereafter be the principle maintained by their govern- 
ment. In evkry regularly documented American merchant vessel, the 

CREW WHO NAVIGATE IT WILL FIND THEIR PROTECTION IN THE FLAG WHICH 15 
OVER THEM." 

And then proceeded : This declaration will stand, not on 
account of any particular ability displayed in the letter which 
it concludes, still less on account of the name subscribed t<» it; 
but it will stand, because it announces the true principles of pub- 



298 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

lie law ; because it announces the great doctrine of the equal- 
ity and independence of nations upon the seas; and because it 
declares the determination of the government and the people 
of the United States to uphold those principles, and to maintain 
that doctrine, through good report and through evil report, for- 
ever. We shall negotiate no more, nor attempt to negotiate 
more, about impressment. We shall not treat hereafter of its 
limitation to parallels of latitude and longitude. We shall not 
treat of its allowance or disallowance in broad seas or narrow 
seas. We shall think no more of stipulating for exemption, from 
its exercise, of some of the persons composing crews. Hence- 
forth the deck of every American vessel is inaccessible for any 
such purpose. It is protected, guarded, defended by the dec- 
laration which I have read, and that declaration will stand. 

Sir, another most important question of maritime law. grow- 
ing out of the case of the " Creole," and other similar cases, was 
the subject of a letter to the British plenipotentiary, and of an 
answer from him. An honorable member from South Caroli- 
na (Mr. Calhoun) had taken, as is well known, a great interest 
in the matter involved in that question. He had expressed his 
opinion of its importance here, and had been sustained by the 
Senate. Occasion was taken of Lord Ashburton's mission to 
communicate to him and to his government the opinions which 
this government entertained ; and I would now ask the honor- 
able member if any similar cause of complaint has since arisen. 
[Mr. Calhoun said he had heard of none.] I trust, sir, that 
none will arise hereafter. I refer to the letter to Lord Ash- 
burton on this subject, as containing what the American gov- 
ernment regarded as the true principle of the maritime law, 
and to his very sensible and proper answer. 

Mr. President, I have reached the end of these remarks, and 
the completion of my purpose ; and I am now ready, sir, to put 
the question to the Senate, and to the country, whether the north- 
eastern boundary has not been fairly and satisfactorily settled ; 
whether proper satisfaction and apology have not been obtained 
for an aggression on the soil and territory of the United States ; 
whether proper and safe stipulations have not been entered 
into for the fulfillment of the duty of the government, and for 
meeting the earnest desire of the people in the suppression of 
the slave trade; whether, in pursuance of these stipulations, a 
degree of success in the attainment of that object has not been 
reached wholly unknown before; whether crimes, disturbing 
the peace of nations, have not been suppressed; whether the 
safety of the southern coasting trade has not been secured ; 
whether impressment has not been struck out from the list of 
contested questions among nations ; and finally, and more than 
all, whether any thing has been done to tarnish the luster of the 
American name and character 1 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 290 

Mr. President, my best services, like those of every other 
good citizen, are due to my country ; and I submit them, and 
their results, in all humility, to her judgment. But standing 
here to-day, in the Senate of the United States, and speaking 
in behalf of the administration of which I formed a part, and 
in behalf of the two houses of Congress who sustained that ad- 
ministration, cordially and effectually, in every thing relating to 
this day's discussion, I am willing to appeal to the public men 
of the age, whether, in 1842, and in the city of Washington, 
something was not done for the suppression of crime, for the 
true exposition of the principles of public law, for the freedom 
and security of commerce on the ocean, and for the peace of 
the world. 



APPENDIX. 

Mr. Wliealon to Mr. Webster. 

Berlin, November 15, 1842. 

Sir, — Your dispatch No. 36, inclosing a copy of the treaty recently concluded at 
Washington, between the United States and Great Britain, has just reached me. 
I beg leave to congratulate you, sir, on the happy termination of this arduous nego- 
tiation, in which the rights, honor, and interests of our country have been so suc- 
cessfully maintained. The arrangement it contains on the subject of the African 
slave trade is particularly satisfactory, as adapted to secure the end proposed by 
the only means consistent with our maritime rights. This arrangement has de- 
cided the course of the French government in respect to this matter. Its embas- 
sador in Loudon notified to the conference of the five great powers the final de- 
termination of France not to ratify the treaty of December, 1841, and, at the same 
time, expressed her disposition to fulfill the stipulations of the separate treaties of 
1831 and 1834, between her and Great Britain. The treaty of 1841, therefore, 
now subsists only between four of the great powers by whom it was originally 
concluded; and as three of these (Austria, Prussia, and Russia) are very little con- 
cerned in. the navigation of the ocean and the trade in the African seas, and have, 
besides, taken precautions in the treaty itself to secure their commerce from in- 
terruption by the exercise of the right of search in other parts, this compact may 
now be considered as almost a dead letter. 

The policy of the United States may consequently be said, on this occasion, per- 
haps for the first time, to have had a most decisive influence on that of Europe. 
This will probably more frequently occur hereafter; and it should be an encour- 
agement to us to cultivate our maritime resources, and to strengthen our naval 
arm, by which alone we are known and felt among the nations of the earth. 

Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French for the Suppression 
of the Traffic in Slaves. — [extract.] 

Article I. In order that the flags of her majesty the Queen of the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of his majesty the King of the French, 
may not, contrary to the law of nations and the laws in force in the two countries, 
be usurped to cover the slave trade, and in order to provide for the more effectual 
suppression of that traffic, his majesty the King of the French engages, as soon as 
may be practicable, to station on the west coast of Africa, from Cape Verd to 10° 
30' south latitude, a naval force of at least twenty-six cruisers, consisting of sailing 
and steam vessels; and her majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Ireland engages, as soon as may be practicable, to station on the same 
part of the west coast of Africa a naval force of not less than twenty-six cruisers, 
consisting of sailing vessels and steam vessels ; and on the east coast of Africa such 
number of cruisers as her majesty shall judge sufficient for the prevention of the 



300 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

trade on that coast; which cruisers shall be employed for the purposes above 
mentioned, in conformity with the following stipulations. 

Article II. The said British and French naval forces shall act in concert for 
the suppression of the slave trade. It will be their duty to watch strictly every 
part of the west coast of Africa within the limits described in Article I., where 
the slave trade is carried on. For this purpose they shall exercise fully and com- 
pletely all the powers vested iu the crowns of Great Britain and France for the 
suppression of the slave trade, subject only to the modifications hereinafter men- 
tioned as to British and French ships. 

Article III. The officers of her majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of 
Great Britain and Ireland, and of his majesty the King of the French, having re- 
spectively the command of the squadrons of Great Britain and France, to be em- 
ployed in carrying out this Convention, shall concert together as to the best means 
of watching strictly the parts of the African coast before described, by selecting 
and defining the stations, and committing the care thereof to English and French 
cruisers, jointly or separately, as may be deemed most expedient; provided al- 
ways, that in case of a station being specially committed to the charge of cruis- 
ers of either nation, the cruisers of the other nation may at any time enter the 
same for the purpose of exercising the rights respectively belonging to them for 
the suppression of the slave trade. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 301 



RELATIONS WITH MEXICO. 

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting 
Copies of Papers upon the Subject of the Relations between the 
United States and the Mexican Republic, July 14, 1842. 

To the House of Representatives of the United States : 
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives 
of the 12th instant, requesting copies of papers upon the subject 
of the relations between the United States and the Mexican 
Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, and 
the documents by which it was accompanied. 

John Tyler. 

Washington, July 14, 1842. 

To the President of the United States : 

Sir, — The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the res- 
o ution of the House of Representatives of yesterday, request- 
ing the President to cause to be communicated to that House, 
so far as might be compatible with the public interest, copies 
of all the correspondence between the governments of the 
United States and of Mexico, since the appointment of the 
present envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of 
the United States to Mexico ; of the instructions given to that 
minister at and since his departure upon his mission, and of 
his dispatches to this government, and particularly of any com- 
plaint of the government of Mexico, alleging the toleration, 
by the government of the United States, of hostile interference 
by their citizens in the war between Mexico and Texas, and 
of any answer, on the part of this government, to such com- 
plaint, has the honor to lay before the President the papers 
mentioned in the accompanying list. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

Daniel Webster. 

Department of State, Washington, July 13, 1842. 

Mr. Velazquez de Leon to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 

New York, June24, 1842. 

The undersigned, in addressing the Hon. Daniel Webster, 
Secretary of State, has the honor to inform him that, although 
he holds in his power the appointment and credentials for pre- 
senting himself and acting as charge d'affaires of Mexico in the 
United States, he has not thought proper to present himself for 



302 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

that purpose, until he had received the answer to the ooserva- 
tions which he had addressed to his own government on that 
subject : but as he has received recently, and during this delay, 
the" two annexed documents for his excellency the President 
and the Hon. Daniel Webster, he hastens to send them on, in 
order that, upon their arriving as soon as possible at their des- 
tination, the honorable Secretary of State may give such an- 
swer as the government of the United States may judge prop- 
er; which answer the undersigned will transmit to the Mex- 
ican government, according to his instructions to that effect. 

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to 
the Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, the assurances 
of his high consideration. 

Joaquin Velazquez de Leon 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of Stale. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Velazquez de Leon. 

Department of State. Washington, June 29. 1810. 

Sir, — Your letter of the -24th of this month, transmitting one 
addressed to this department by the Secretary of State and 
Foreign Relations oi' the Mexican Republic, was duly received. 

The President has long desired to see here a representative 
of that government, the residence of such a functionary being 
esteemed likely to foster and promote the peace and interests 
of the two countries. We are happy to hear that an appoint- 
ment has at length been made : and all just respect will be 
paid to your credentials, whenever it shall be your pleasure to 
present them. Until such presentment be made, however, no 
regular diplomatic intercourse can be had between this depart- 
ment and vourself. Whatever answer may be judged proper 
to the letter of Mr. De Bocanegra to this department will be 
transmitted through the minister of the United States at Mexico. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

Daniel Webster. 

Senor Don Joaquin Velazquez de Leon. 

Mr. De Bocanegra to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 

National Palace. Mexico, May 12, L842. 

The undersigned, Secretary of State and Foreign Relations, 
enjoys the satisfaction of addressing the honorable Secretary 
of State of the United States of America, in the name and by 
the express order o\ his excellency the President of the Mex- 
ican Republic. The relations of amity and good harmony 
which have happily subsisted between this and your great na- 
tion might have been disturbed in a lamentable manner, since 
the vear 1835, when the revolution of Texas broke out, if the 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL FAI'I. . 303 

Mexican government had not given so many evidences of its 
forbearance, and had not made so many and so great sacrifices 
for the sake of peace, in order that the world might not, with 
pain and amazement, see the two nations which appear to be 
destined to establish the policy and the interests of the Ameri- 
can continent divided and ravaged by the evils of war. 

But, from that truly unfortunate period, the Mexican Re- 
public has received nothing but severe injuries and inflictions 
from the citizens of the United States. The Mexican govern- 
ment speaks only of the citizens of the United States, as it still 
flatters itself with the belief that it is not the government of 
that country which has promoted the insurrection in Texas, 
which has favored the usurpation of its territory, and has sup- 
plied the rebels with ammunition, arms, vessels, money, and 
recruits ; but that these aggressions have proceeded from pri- 
vate individuals, who have not respected the solemn engage- 
ments which bind together the two nations, nor the treaties 
concluded between them, nor the conduct, ostensibly frank, of 
the cabinet of Washington. 

It is, however, notorious, that the insurgent colonists of that 
integral part of the territory of the Mexican Republic would 
have been unable to maintain their prolonged rebellion, with- 
out the aid and the efficient sympathies of citizens of the Unit- 
ed States, who have publicly raised forces in their cities and 
towns ; have fitted out vessels in their ports, and laden them 
with munitions of war ; and have marched to commit hostili- 
ties against a friendly nation, under the eyes and with the 
knowledge of the authorities to whom are intrusted the fulfill- 
ment of the law. 

The Mexican government entertains so high an opinion of 
the force of the government of the United States, and of its 
power to restrain those its subjects from violating the religious 
faith of treaties, solemnly concluded between it and other na- 
tions, and from committing hostilities against such nations in 
time of peace, that it can not easily comprehend how those 
persons have been able to evade the punishment decreed 
against them by the laws of the United States themselves, and 
to obtain that quiet impunity which incessantly encourages 
them to continue their attacks. It is well worthy of remark, 
that, no sooner does the Mexican government, in the exercise 
of its rights, which it can not and does not desire to renounce, 
prepare means to recover a possession usurped from it, than 
the whole population of the United States, especially in the 
Southern States, is in commotion; and in the most public man- 
ner, a larL r e portion of them is turned upon Texas, in order to 
prevent the rebels from being subjected by the Mexican arms, 
and brought back to proper obedience. 



304 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

Could proceedings more hostile, on the part of the United 
States, have taken place, had that country been at war with 
the Mexican Republic ? Could the insurgents of Texas have 
obtained a co-operation more effective or more favorable to 
their interests? Certainly not. The civilized world looks on 
with amazement, and the Mexican government is filled with 
unspeakable regret, as it did hope, and had a right to hope, 
that, living in peace with the United States, your government 
would preserve our territory from the invasions of your own 
subjects. The vicinity of a friend is an advantage rather than 
an inconvenience ; but if one neighbor oversteps the sacred 
limits imposed by treaties, and disturbs and harasses another, 
it can not be maintained that the friendship of the former is 
real, and that much confidence should be placed in it. 

The government of the Mexican Republic, therefore, which 
regards the faithful fulfillment of treaties as its highest obliga- 
tion, which anxiously desires to preserve and increase its 
friendly relations with the people and the government of the 
United States, finds itself under the necessity of protesting sol- 
emnly against the aggressions which the citizens of those 
states are constantly repeating upon the Mexican territory, 
and of declaring, in a positive manner, that it considers as a 
violation of the treaty of amity the toleration of a course of 
conduct which produces an incomprehensible state of things — 
a state neither of peace nor war — but inflicting upon the Mex- 
ican Republic the same injuries and inconveniences as if war 
had been declared between the two nations, which are called 
by Providence to form with each other relations and bonds of 
extreme and cordial friendship. 

And the undersigned, in complying with this order from the 
most excellent Provisional President of the Republic of Mexi- 
co, assures you, sir, of the high consideration with which he 
remains your obedient servant, J. M. de Bocanegra. 

Hou. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State of the United States of America. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Thompson. — [copy.] 

Department of State, Washington, July 8, 1842. 

Sir, — On the 29th of last month, a communication was re- 
ceived at this department from Mr. De Bocanegra, Secretary 
of State and Foreign Relations of the government of Mexico, 
having been forwarded through the agency of Mr. Velazquez 
de Leon, at New York, who informed the department, by a 
letter accompanying that of Mr. De Bocanegra, that he had 
been appointed charge d'affaires of the Mexican Republic to 
this government, although he had not yet presented his creden- 
tials. Mr. De Bocanegra's letter is addressed to the Secretary 
of State of the United States, and bears date the 12th of Ma v. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 305 

A copy, together with a copy of the communication from Mr. 
Velazquez de Leon, transmitting it, and of the answer to Mr. 
Velazquez de Leon from this department, you will receive 
herewith. Upon the receipt of this dispatch, you will imme- 
diately address a note to Mr. De Bocanegra, in which you will 
say, that 

The Secretary of State of the United States has received a 
letter addressed to him by Mr. De Bocanegra, under date of 
the 12th of May, and transmitted to the Department of State 
at Washington, through the agency of Mr. Velazquez de Leon, 
at New York, who informs the government of the United 
States that he has been appointed charge d'affaires of the Mex- 
ican Republic, although he has not presented his letter of cre- 
dence. 

The government of the United States sees with regret the 
adoption, on this occasion, of a form of communication quite 
unusual in diplomatic intercourse, and for which no necessity 
is known. An envoy extraordinary and minister plenipoten- 
tiary of the United States, fully accredited to the government 
of Mexico, was at that moment in its capital, in the actual dis- 
charge of his functions, and ready to receive on behalf of his 
government any communication which it might be the pleasure 
of the President of the Mexican Republic to make to it. And 
it is not improper to here add, that it has been matter of regret 
with the government of the United States, that while, being 
animated with a sincere desire at all times to cultivate the 
most amicable relations with Mexico, it has not failed to main- 
tain, near that government, a mission of the highest rank known 
to its usages, Mexico, for a long time, has had no representa- 
tive near the government of the United States. 

But the manner of the communication from Mr. De Boca- 
negra, however novel and extraordinary, is less important than 
its contents and character, which surprise the government of 
the United States, by a loud complaint of the violation of its 
neutral duties. Mr. De Bocanegra, speaking, as he says, by 
the express order of the President of the Mexican Republic, 
declares that the amicable relations between the tw r o countries 
might have been lamentably disturbed since the year 1835, 
when the revolution of Texas broke out, had not Mexico given 
so many evidences of its forbearance, and made so many and 
so great sacrifices for the sake of peace, in order that the world 
might not see, with pain and amazement, two nations which 
appear destined to establish the policy and interests of the 
American continent divided and ravaged by the evils of war. 

This language implies that such has been the conduct of the 
United States toward Mexico, that war must have ensued be- 
fore the present time, had not Mexico made great sacrifices to 

U 



306 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL TAPERS. 

avoid such a result : a charge which the government of the 
United States utterly denies and repels. It is wholly ignorant 
of any sacrifices made by Mexico in order to preserve peace, 
or of any occasion calling on its government to manifest uncom- 
mon forbearance. On the contrary, the government of the 
United States can not but be of opinion that, if the history of 
the occurrences between the two governments, and the state of 
things at this moment existing between them, be regarded, both 
the one and the other will demonstrate that it is the conduct of 
the government of the United States which has been marked, 
in an especial manner, by moderation and forbearance. In- 
juries and wrongs have been sustained by citizens of the Unit- 
ed States, not inflicted by individual Mexicans, but by the au- 
thorities of the government ; for which injuries and wrongs, 
numerous as they are, and outrageous as is the character of 
some of them, and acknowledged as they are by Mexico her- 
self, redress has been sought only by mild and peaceable means, 
and no indemnity asked but such as the strictest justice imper- 
atively demanded. A desire not to disturb the peace and har- 
mony of the two countries has led the government of the Unit- 
ed States to be content with the lowest measure of remunera- 
tion. Mexico herself must admit that, in all these transactions, 
the conduct of the United States toward her has been signal- 
ized, not by the infliction of injuries, but by the manifestation 
of a friendly feeling and a conciliatory spirit. 

The government of the United States will not be unjust in 
its sentiments toward Mexico ; it will not impute to its govern- 
ment any desire to disturb the peace ; it acquits it of any de- 
sign to spread the ravages and horrors of war over the two 
countries ; and it leaves it to Mexico herself to avow her own 
motives for her pacific policy, if she have any other motive 
than those of expediency and justice ; provided, however, that 
such avowal of her motives carry with it no imputation or re- 
flection upon the good faith and honor of the United States. 

The revolution in Texas, and the events connected with it 
and springing out of it, are Mr. De Bocanegra's principal topic; 
and it is in relation to these that his complaint is founded. His 
government, he says, flatters itself that the government of the 
United States has not promoted the insurrection in Texas, fa- 
vored the usurpation of its territory, or supplied the rebels with 
vessels, ammunition, and money. If Mr. De Bocanegra intends 
this as a frank admission of the honest and cautious neutrality 
of the government of the United States in the contest between 
Mexico and Texas, he does that government justice, and no 
more than justice ; but if the language be intended to intimate 
an opposite and a reproachful meaning, that meaning is only 
the more offensive for being insinuated rather than distinctly 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 307 

avowed. Mr. De Bocanegra would seem to represent that, 
from 1835 to the present time, citizens of the United States, if 
not their government, have been aiding rebels in Texas in arms 
against the lawful authority of Mexico. This is not a little ex- 
traordinary. Mexico may have chosen to consider, and may 
still choose to consider, Texas as having been at all times, since 
1835, and as still continuing, a rebellious province; but the 
world has been obliged to take a very different view of the mat- 
ter. From the time of the battle of San Jacinto, in April, 1836, 
to the present moment, Texas has exhibited the same external 
signs of national independence as Mexico herself, and with quite 
as much stability of government. Practically free and inde- 
pendent, acknowledged as a political sovereignty by the prin- 
cipal powers of the world, no hostile foot finding rest within 
her territory for six or seven years, and Mexico herself refrain- 
ing, for all that period, from any further attempt to re-establish 
her own authority over that territory, it can not but be surpris- 
ing to find Mr. De Bocanegra complaining that, for that whole 
period, citizens of the United States, or its government, have 
been favoring the rebels of Texas, and supplying them with 
vessels, ammunition, and money, as if the war for the reduction 
of the province of Texas had been constantly prosecuted by 
Mexico, and her success prevented by these influences from 
abroad ! 

The general facts appertaining to the settlement of Texas, 
and the revolution in its government, can not but be well 
known to Mr. De Bocanegra. By the treaty of the 22d of 
February, 1819, between the United States and Spain, the Sab- 
ine was adopted as the line of boundary between the two pow- 
ers. Up to that period, no considerable colonization had been 
effected in Texas ; but the territory between the Sabine and 
the Rio Grande being confirmed to Spain by the treaty, ap- 
plications were made to that power for grants of land ; and 
such grants, or permissions of settlement, were, in fact, made 
by the Spanish authorities in favor of citizens of the United 
States proposing to emigrate to Texas in numerous families, 
before the declaration of independence by Mexico. And 
these early grants were confirmed, as is well known, by suc- 
cessive acts of the Mexican government, after its separation 
from Spain. In January, 1823, a national colonization law 
was passed, holding out strong inducements to all persons 
who should incline to undertake the settlement of uncultivated 
lands ; and although the Mexican law prohibited for a time 
citizens of foreign countries from settling, as colonists, in terri- 
tories immediately adjoining such foreign countries, yet even 
this restriction was afterward repealed or suspended ; so that, 
in fact, Mexico, from the commencement of her political exist- 



308 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

ence, held out the most liberal inducements to emigrants into 
her territories, with full knowledge that these inducements were 
likely to act, and expecting they would act, with the greatest 
effect upon citizens of the United States, especially of the 
Southern States, whose agricultural pursuits naturally ren- 
dered the rich lands of Texas, so well suited to their accus- 
tomed occupation, objects of desire to them. The early col- 
onists of the United States, introduced by Moses and Stephen 
Austin under these inducements and invitations, were persons 
of most respectable character, and their undertaking was at- 
tended with very severe hardships, occasioned in no small de- 
gree by the successive changes in the government of Mexico. 
They nevertheless persevered, and accomplished a settlement. 
And, under the encouragements and allurements thus held out 
by Mexico, other emigrants followed, and many thousand col- 
onists from the United States and elsewhere had settled in 
Texas, within ten years from the date of Mexican independ- 
ence. Having some reason to complain, as they thought, of 
the government over them, and especially of the aggressions 
of the Mexican military stationed in Texas, they sought relief 
by applying to the supreme government for the separation of 
Texas from Coahuila, and for a local government for Texas 
itself. Not having succeeded in this object, in the process of 
time, and in the progress of events, they saw fit to attempt an 
entire separation from Mexico, to set up a government of their 
own, and to establish a political sovereignty. War ensued ; 
and the battle of San Jacinto, fought on the 21st of April, 1836, 
achieved their independence. The war was from that time at 
an end, and in March following the independence of Texas was 
formally acknowledged by the government of the United States. 

In the events leading to the actual result of these hostilities 
the United States had no agency, and took no part. Its gov- 
ernment had, from the first, abstained from giving aid or suc- 
cor to either party. It knew its neutral obligations, and fairly 
endeavored to fulfill them all. It acknowledged the independ- 
ence of Texas only when that independence was an apparent 
and an ascertained fact ; and its example in this particular has 
been followed by several of the most considerable powers of 
Europe. 

It has been sometimes stated, as if for the purpose of giving 
more reason to the complaints of Mexico, that, of the military 
force which acted against Mexico with efficiency and success 
in 1836, a large portion consisted of volunteers then fresh from 
the United States. But this is a great error. It is well ascer- 
tained, that of those who bore arms in the Texan ranks in the 
battle of San Jacinto, three fourths, at least, were colonists, in- 
vited into Texas by the grants and the colonization laws of 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 309 

Mexico, and called to the field by the exigencies of the times 
in 1836, from their farms and other objects of private pursuit. 
Mr. De Bocanegra's complaint is two-fold : first, that citizens 
of the United States have supplied the rebels in Texas with 
ammunition, arms, vessels, money, and recruits ; have publicly 
raised forces in their cities and fitted out vessels in their ports, 
loaded them with munitions of war, and marched to commit 
hostilities against a friendly nation, under the eye and with the 
knowledge of the public authorities of the United States. In all 
this Mr. De Bocanegra appears to forget that, while the United 
States are at peace with Mexico, they are also at peace with 
Texas ; that both stand on the same footing of friendly nations ; 
that, since 1837, the United States have regarded Texas as an 
independent sovereignty as much as Mexico ; and that trade 
and commerce with citizens of a government at war with Mex- 
ico can not, on that account, be regarded as an intercourse by 
which assistance and succor are given to Mexican rebels. The 
whole current of Mr. De Bocanegra's remarks runs in the same 
direction, as if the independence of Texas had not been ac- 
knowledged. It has been acknowledged; it was acknowledged 
in 1837, against the remonstrance and protest of Mexico; and 
most of the acts of any importance of which Mr. De Bocanegra 
complains flow necessarily from that recognition. He speaks 
of Texas as still being " an integral part of the territory of the 
Mexican Republic ;" but he can not but understand that the 
United States do not so regard it. The real complaint of Mex- 
ico, therefore, is, in substance, neither more nor less than a com- 
plaint against the recognition of Texan independence. It may 
be thought rather late to repeat that complaint, and not quite 
just to confine it to the United States, to the exemption of En- 
gland, France, and Belgium, unless the United States, having 
been the first to acknowledge the independence of Mexico her- 
self, are to be blamed for setting an example for the recogni- 
tion of that of Texas. But it is still true that Mr. De Bocane- 
gra's specification of his grounds of complaint and remon- 
strance is mainly confined to such transactions and occurrences 
as are the natural consequence of the political relations existing 
between Texas and the United States. Acknowledging Texas 
to be an independent nation, the government of the United 
States, of course, allows and encourages lawful trade and com- 
merce between the two countries. If articles contraband of 
war be found mingled with this commerce, while Mexico and 
Texas are belligerent states, Mexico has the right to intercept 
the transit of such articles to her enemy. This is the common 
right of all belligerents, and belongs to Mexico in the same ex- 
tent as to other nations. But Mr. De Bocanegra is quite well 
aware that it is not the practice of nations to undertake to pro- 



310 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

hibit their own subjects, by previous laws, from trafficking in 
articles contraband of war. Such trade is carried on at the 
risk of those engaged in it, under the liabilities and penalties 
prescribed by the law of nations or by particular treaties. If 
it be true, therefore, that citizens of the United States have 
been engaged in a commerce by which Texas, an enemy of 
Mexico, has been supplied with arms and munitions of war, 
the government of the United States, nevertheless, was not 
bound to prevent it, could not have prevented it, without a man- 
ifest departure from the principles of neutrality, and is in no 
way answerable for the consequences. The treaty of the 5th 
of April, 1831, between the United States and Mexico itself, 
shows most clearly how little foundation there is for the com- 
plaint of trading with Texas, if Texas is to be regarded as a 
public enemy of Mexico. The 16th article declares, "It shall 
ikewise be lawful for the aforesaid citizens, respectively, to 
sail with their vessels and merchandise before mentioned, and 
to trade, with the same liberty and security, from the places, 
ports, and havens of those who are enemies of both or either 
party, without any opposition or disturbance whatsoever, not 
only directly from the places of the enemy before mentioned 
to neutral places, but also from one place belonging to an en- 
emy to another place belonging to an enemy, whether they be 
under the jurisdiction of the same government, or under sev- 
eral." 

The 18th article enumerates those commodities which shall 
be regarded as contraband of war ; but neither that article nor 
any other imposes on either nation any duty of preventing, by 
previous regulation, commerce in such articles. Such com- 
merce is left to its ordinary fate, according to the law of na- 
tions. It is only, therefore, by insisting, as Mr. De Bocanegra 
does insist, that Texas is still a part of Mexico, that he can 
maintain any complaint. Let it be repeated, therefore, that if 
the things against which he remonstrates be wrong, they have 
their source in the original wrong of the acknowledgment of 
Texan independence. But that acknowledgment is not likely 
to be retracted. 

There can be no doubt at all that, for the last six years, the 
trade in articles contraband of war between the United States 
and Mexico has been greater than between the United States 
and Texas. It is probably greater at the present moment. 
Why has not Texas a right to complain of this? For no rea- 
son, certainly, but because the permission to trade, or the actual 
trading, by the citizens of a government, in articles contraband 
of war, is not a breach of neutrality. 

Mr. De Bocanegra professes himself unable to comprehend 
how those persons of whom he complains have been able to 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 311 

evade the punishment decreed against them by the laws of the 
United States ; but he does not appear to have a clear idea of 
the principles or provisions of those laws. The duties of neu- 
tral nations in time of war are prescribed by the law of na- 
tions, which is imperative and binding upon all governments ; 
and nations not unfrequently establish municipal regulations for 
the better government of the conduct of their subjects or citizens. 

This has been done by the United States, in order to main- 
tain with greater certainty a strict and impartial neutrality 
pending war between other countries. And wherever a vio- 
lation of neutral duties, as they exist by the law of nations, or 
any breach of its own laws, has been brought to the notice ot 
the government, attention has always been paid to it. 

At an early period of the Texan Revolution, strict orders 
were given by the President of the United States to all officers 
on the south and southwestern frontier, to take care that those 
laws should be observed ; and the attention of the government 
of the United States has not been called to any specific viola- 
tion of them since the manifestation on the part of Mexico of 
an intention to renew hostilities with Texas ; and all officers 
of the government remain charged with the strict and faithful 
execution of these laws. On a recent occasion, complaint was 
made by the representatives of Texas that an armament was 
fitted out in the United States for the service of Mexico against 
Texas. 

Two vessels of war, it was alleged, built or purchased in 
the United States, for the use of the government of Mexico, 
and well understood as intended to be employed against Texas, 
were equipped and ready to sail from the waters of New York. 
The case was carefully inquired into, official examination was 
made, and legal counsel invoked. It appeared to be a case of 
great doubt ; but Mexico was allowed the benefit of that doubt, 
and the vessels left the United States, with the whole or a part 
of their armament actually on board. The same administra- 
tion of even-handed justice, the same impartial execution of the 
laws toward all parties, will continue to be observed. 

If forces have been raised in the United States, or vessels 
fitted out in their ports for Texan service, contrary to law, no 
instance of which has yet come to the knowledge of the gov- 
ernment, prompt attention will be paid to the first case, and to 
all cases which may be made known to it. As to advances, 
loans, or donations of money or goods, made by individuals to 
the government of Texas or its citizens, Mr. De Bocanegra 
hardly needs to be informed that there is nothing unlawful in 
this, so long as Texas is at peace with the United States, and 
that these are things which no government undertakes to re- 
strain. Other citizens are equally at liberty, should they be so 



312 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

inclined, to show their good- will toward Mexico by the same 
means. Still less can the government of the United States be 
called upon to interfere with opinions uttered in the public as- 
semblages of a free people, accustomed to the independent ex- 
pression of their sentiments, resulting in no violation of the laws 
of their country, or of its duties as a neutral state. Toward 
the United States, Mexico and Texas stand in the same rela- 
tion as independent states at war. Of the character of that 
war, mankind will form their own opinions ; and in the United 
States, at least, the utterance of those opinions can not be sup- 
pressed. 

The second part of Mr. De Bocanegra's complaint is thus 
stated : " No sooner does the Mexican government, in the ex- 
ercise of its rights, which it can not and does not desire to re- 
nounce, prepare means to recover a possession usurped from 
it, than the whole population of the United States, especially 
in the Southern States, is in commotion ; and, in the most pub- 
lic manner, a large portion of them is directed upon Texas." 

And how does Mr. De Bocanegra suppose that the govern- 
ment of the United States can prevent, or is bound to under- 
take to prevent, the people from thus going to Texas ? This 
is emigration — the same emigration, though not under the same 
circumstances, which Mexico invited to Texas before the Rev- 
olution. These persons, so far as is known to the government 
of the United States, repair to Texas, not as citizens of the 
United States, but as ceasing to be such citizens, and as chang- 
ing, at the same time, their allegiance and their domicil. Should 
they return, after having entered into the service of a foreign 
state, still claiming to be citizens of the United States, it will 
be for the authorities of the United States government to de- 
termine how far they have violated the municipal laws of the 
country, and what penalties they have incurred. The govern- 
ment of the United States does not maintain, and never has 
maintained, the doctrine of the perpetuity of natural allegiance. 
And surely Mexico maintains no such doctrine ; because her 
actually existing government, like that of the United States, is 
founded in the principle that men may throw off the obligation 
of that allegiance to which they are born. The government 
of the United States, from its origin, has maintained legal pro- 
visions for the naturalization of such subjects of foreign states 
as may choose to come hither, make their home in the country, 
and, renouncing their former allegiance, and complying with 
certain stated requisitions, to take upon themselves the char- 
acter of citizens of this government. Mexico herself has laws 
granting equal facilities to the naturalization of foreigners. On 
the other hand, the United States have not passed any law re- 
straining their own citizens, native or naturalized, from leaving 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 313 

the country and forming political relations elsewhere. Nor 
do other governments, in modern times, attempt any such thing. 
It is true that there are governments which assert the principle 
of perpetual allegiance ; yet, even in cases where this is not 
rather a matter of theory than practice, the duties of this sup- 
posed continuing allegiance are left to be demanded of the sub- 
ject himself, when within the reach of the power of his former 
government, and as exigencies may arise ; and are not attempt- 
ed to be enforced by the imposition of previous restraint, pre- 
venting men from leaving their country. 

Upon this subject of the emigration of individuals from neu- 
tral to belligerent states, in regard to which Mr. De Bocane- 
gra appears so indignant, we must be allowed to bring Mexico 
into her own presence, to compare her with herself, and re- 
spectfully invite her to judge the matter by her own principles 
and her own conduct. In her great struggle against Spain 
for her own independence, did she not open her arms wide to 
receive all who would come to her from any part of the world ? 
And did not multitudes flock to her new-raised standard of 
liberty, from the United States, from England, Ireland, France, 
and Italy, many of whom distinguished themselves in her serv- 
ice, both by sea and land ? She does not appear to have sup- 
posed that the governments of these persons, thus coming to 
unite their fate with hers, were, by allowing the emigration, 
even pending a civil war, furnishing just cause of offense to 
Spain. Even in her military operations against Texas, Mexi- 
co employed many foreign emigrants; and it may be thought 
remarkable that, in those very operations, not long before the 
battle of San Jacinto, a native citizen of the United States 
held high command in her service, and performed feats of no 
mean significance in Texas. Of that toleration, therefore, as 
she calls it, and which she now so warmly denounces, Mexico 
in that hour of emergency embraced the benefits eagerly, and- 
to the full extent of her power. May we not ask, then, how 
she can reconcile her present complaints with her own prac- 
tice, as well as how she accounts for so long and unbroken a 
silence upon a subject on which her remonstrance is now so 

loud? 

Spain chose to regard Mexico only in the light of a rebell- 
ious province for near twenty years after she had asserted her 
own independence. Does Mexico now admit that, for all that 
period, notwithstanding her practical emancipation from Span- 
ish power, it was unlawful for the subjects and citizens of 
other governments to carry on with her the ordinary business 
of commerce, or to accept her tempting offers to emigrants? 

Certainly such is not her opinion. 

Might it not be asked, then, even if the United States had 



'o' 



314 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

not already and long ago acknowledged the independence of 
Texas, how long they should be expected to wait for the ac- 
complishment of the object, now existing only in purpose and 
intention, of the resubjugation of that territory by Mexico ? 

How long, let it be asked, in the judgment of Mexico her- 
self, is the fact of actual independence to be held of no avail 
against an avowed purpose of future reconquest ? 

Mr. De Bocanegra is pleased to say that, if war actually ex- 
isted between the two countries, proceedings more hostile, on 
the part of the United States, could not have taken place, nor 
the insurgents of Texas obtained more effectual co-operation 
than they have obtained. 

This opinion, however hazardous to the discernment and just 
estimate of things of those who avow it, is yet abstract and 
theoretical, and, so far, harmless. 

The efficiency of American hostility to Mexico has never 
been tried ; the government has no desire to try it. It would 
not disturb the peace for the sake of showing how erroneously 
Mr. De Bocanegra has reasoned ; while, on the other hand, it 
trusts that a just hope may be entertained that Mexico will not 
inconsiderately and needlessly hasten into an experiment by 
which the truth or fallacy of his sentiments may be brought to 
an actual ascertainment. 

Mr. De Bocanegra declares, in conclusion, that his govern- 
ment finds itself under the necessity of protesting solemnly 
against the aggressions which the citizens of the United States 
are reiterating upon the Mexican territory, and of declaring, 
in a positive manner, that it will consider as a violation of the 
treaty of amity the toleration of that course of conduct, which 
he alleges inflicts on the Mexican Republic the injuries and in- 
conveniences of war. The President exceedingly regrets both 
the sentiment and the manner of this declaration. But it can 
admit but of one answer. The Mexican government appears 
to require that which could not be granted, in whatever lan- 
guage or whatever tone requested. The government of the 
United States is a government of law. 

The chief executive magistrate, as well as functionaries in 
every other department, is restrained and guided by the Con- 
stitution and the laws of the land. Neither the Constitution, 
nor the law of the land, nor principles known to the usages 
of modern states, authorizes him to interdict lawful trade be- 
tween the United States and Texas, or to prevent, or attempt 
to prevent, individuals from leaving the United States for Tex- 
as or any other foreign country. 

If such individuals enter into the service of Texas, or any 
other foreign state, the government of the United States no 
longer holds over them the shield of its protection. They 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 315 

must stand or fall in their newly-assumed character, and ac- 
cording to the fortunes which may betide it. But the govern- 
ment of the United States can not be called upon to prevent 
their emigration ; and it must be added, that the Constitution, 
public treaties, and the laws oblige the President to regard 
Texas as an independent state, and its territory as no part of 
the territory of Mexico. Every provision of law, every prin- 
ciple of neutral obligation, will be sedulously enforced in rela- 
tion to Mexico, as in relation to other powers, and to the same 
extent, and with the same integrity of purpose. All this be- 
longs to the constitutional power and duty of the government, 
and it will all be fulfilled. But the continuance of amity with 
Mexico can not be purchased at any higher rate. If the peace 
of the two countries is to be disturbed, the responsibility will 
devolve on Mexico. She must be answerable for consequen- 
ces. The United States, let it be again repeated, desire peace. 
It would be with infinite pain that they should find themselves 
in hostile relations with any of the new governments on this 
Continent. But their government is regulated, limited, full of 
the spirit of liberty, but surrounded, nevertheless, with just re- 
straints ; and, greatly and fervently as it desires peace with all 
states, and especially with its more immediate neighbors", yet 
no fear of a different state of things can be allowed to inter- 
rupt its course of equal and exact justice to all nations, nor to 
jostle it out of the constitutional orbit in which it revolves. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

Daniel Webster. 
Waddy Thompson, Jr., Esq., &c. 

Mr. De Bocanegra to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 

National Palace, Mexico, May 31, 1842. 

The undersigned, Minister of Foreign Relations and Gov- 
ernment of the Mexican Republic, had the honor, a few days 
since, to address the Honorable Secretary of State of the Unit- 
ed States, in order to protest formally against the government 
of that Republic, in the name of his Excellency the Provision- 
al President, on account of the continual hostilities and aggres- 
sions of citizens of the United States against the Mexican ter- 
ritory ; and, although he might hope for a flattering result in 
the change of proceedings, he finds himself, in consequence of 
the continuation of those proceedings, under the necessity of 
again calling the attention of the Secretary of State to the un- 
deniable toleration which has been and is still afforded to the 
enemies of a nation sincerely friendly, and bound by the sol- 
emn compacts of a treaty, which unites the two republics. 

In that note the undersigned, after setting before the Secre- 
tary the prudence with which the government of Mexico has 



316 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

sought, ever since the commencement of the revolution of Tex- 
as, to conduct all its relations with the United States, so as to 
avoid a rupture between the two nations, which, from their im- 
portance and other serious considerations, seem destined to fix 
the policy and the lot of the vast and rich Continent of Ameri- 
ca, he flattered himself with the idea that the cabinet of Wash- 
ington would not protect, either openly or secretly, or in any 
way, the scandalous usurpation of an acknowledged portion of 
the national territory. He, however, regrets that he must 
judge from facts, open to all the world, that the very cabinet 
of the United States, and the subaltern and local authorities, do 
observe a conduct openly at variance with the most sacred 
principles of the law of nations and the solemn compacts of 
amity existing between the two nations ; sufficient proof being 
afforded by the consent given to the formation of the most tu- 
multuous public assemblies, in various parts of the United 
States themselves, to the equipment of armaments, and the em- 
barkation of volunteers in large bodies, and to the preparation 
and disposal of every thing calculated to contribute to aid the 
Texans, and to the invasion of a neighboring and friendly re- 
public. 

The Mexican government can not understand such conduct ; 
and, being itself frank in its proceedings, and animated at the 
same time by a sincere desire that the relations now existing 
between this republic and the United States should not suffer 
the slightest alteration, it considers itself bound in duty to re- 
peat, with every formality, its former protest against such tol- 
eration ; the continuance of which it will regard as a positive 
act of hostility against this republic, which will regulate the 
conduct to be observed by it agreeably to the dictates of jus- 
tice and to the interests and dignity of the nation. 

The undersigned hopes that the secretary will be pleased to 
reply with that promptness which the importance of the subject 
requires; and he avails himself, with pleasure, of this opportu- 
nity to repeat to that gentleman the assurance of his most dis- 
tinguished consideration, with which he remains, &c, 

J. M. DE BoCANEGRA. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State of the United States of America. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Thompson. 

Department of State, Washington, July 13, 1842. 

Sir, — After writing to you on the 8th instant, I received, 
through the same channel as the former, Mr. De Bocanegra's 
second letter, and at the same time your dispatch of the 6th 
of June, and your private letter of the 21st. This last letter 
of Mr. De Bocanegra was written, as you will see, before it 
was possible for him to expect an answer to his first, which 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL FAPEUS. 317 

answer is now forwarded, and shows the groundless nature of 
the complaints of Mexico. The letter itself is highly excep- 
tionable and offensive. It imputes violations of honor and good 
faith to the government of the United States, not only in the 
most unjust, but in the most indecorous manner. You have 
not spoken of it in terms too strong in your circular to the 
members of the diplomatic corps. 

On the receipt of this, you will write a note to Mr. De Bo- 
canegra, in which you will say that the Secretary of State of 
the United States, on the 9th of July, received his letter of the 
31st of May. That the President of the United States consid- 
ers the language and tone of that letter derogatory to the char- 
acter of the United States, and highly offensive, as it imputes 
to their government a direct breach of faith ; and that he di- 
rects that no other answer be given to it, than the declaration 
that the conduct of the government of the United States, in re- 
gard to the war between Mexico and Texas, having been al- 
ways hitherto governed by a strict and impartial regard to its 
neutral obligations, will not be changed or altered in any re- 
spect or in any degree. If for this the government of Mexico 
shall see fit to change the relations at present existing between 
the two countries, the responsibility remains with herself. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

Daniel Webster. 

Waddt Thompson, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary of the United States, Mexico. 



RESPECTING THE AMERICAN CITIZENS CAP- 
TURED AT SANTA FE. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Ellis. 

Department of State, Washington, January 3. 1842. 

Sir, — The friends of Mr. Franklin Coombs, son of General 
Leslie Coombs, of Kentucky, have applied for the interposition 
of this government in behalf of that young gentleman, who ac- 
companied the late Texan expedition to Santa Fe, in Mexico, 
and is supposed to have been captured, and, if alive, to be held 
in bondage in that country, with the other survivors of the ex- 
pedition. It has been represented to this department that young 
Coombs has never been a citizen of Texas ; that he did not re- 
pair to that country with any intention of relinquishing his al- 
legiance to this government, or of remaining in Texas ; but 
that he went thither in the autumn of 1840, upon private busi- 
ness of his father, and for the benefit which he was assured his 
feeble health would derive from the milder winter climate of 
that region. He was, however, detained there by both causes 



318 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

until about the time when the expedition referred to set out. 
This he determined to accompany, merely for the object of con- 
firming his health, and gratifying a curiosity, both liberal and 
natural, in regard to the unknown lands through which the 
course of the expedition lay. 

As there is no reason to doubt the correctness of this infor- 
mation, you will, accordingly, forthwith make the necessary 
representations to the Mexican government upon the subject, 
with a view to avert from young Coombs, if he should be alive, 
the dangers to which he may be or may have been exposed. 
You will state that, from the respectability of his family, and 
for other reasons, there can be no ground for the belief that he 
would have accompanied the expedition for any other objects 
than those mentioned ; and that if he had been aware that the 
views of the Texan government, in dispatching it, had been 
hostile or predatory, rather than friendly and commercial, as 
they were understood to have been at the time, he would not 
have gone in its company. If to this it be objected that the 
expedition was military in its array, and must, therefore, be 
presumed to have had warlike designs against the Mexican au- 
thorities, it may be answered that the avowed motive of the 
members of the expedition, in bearing arms, was to ward off 
the attacks of hostile Indians, and especially of the Camanches, 
who, it is well known, roam in great force along and across 
the track which was to have been pursued. This objection 
would apply with much less, if with any force to young Coombs, 
as he was no soldier, and had never been one ; and, if found 
with arms, there could in his case be no better ground for the 
opinion that they were to have been used for purposes of at- 
tack, and not for those of defense, than if he had accompanied 
one of the caravans from Missouri to Santa Fe, by means of 
which, as is well known, an extensive trade is carried on be- 
tween this country and Mexico, to the mutual advantage of the 
parties. 

Although young Coombs is the only American citizen who 
accompanied the expedition for whom the interference of this 
government has been asked, it is understood that there was 
another who as little deserves to be subjected to any penal 
proceedings on the part of the Mexican government. This is 
Mr. George W. Kendall, of New Orleans. 

You will press this case with the utmost earnestness on the 
Mexican government, as the government of the United States 
feels itself bound to interfere, and to signify its confident ex- 
pectation that the lives of American citizens will not be sacri- 
ficed, who have not intentionally done any thing of a hostile 
character against Mexico. Even if the conduct of young 
Coombs was indiscreet and ill-judged, yet this government can 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS 319 

not suppose that the government of Mexico would treat him as 
an armed combatant found among its enemies. 

You will spare no pains to impress the Mexican authorities 
with the feelings which would be excited in this country if any 
harsh proceeding should be adopted toward this youth. 

You will avail yourself of the opportunity of making to that 
government this communication, to suggest that, while this 
government is disposed to maintain with strict fidelity amica- 
ble relations with the Mexican Republic, and will not attempt 
to screen from merited punishment any of our citizens who 
may be guilty of an infraction of the laws intended to preserve 
those relations, yet that summary, sanguinary, or undue pun- 
ishment of either Texans or citizens of the United States, in 
Mexico, inevitably tends to excite and foment in this country 
an acerbity of feeling against Mexico which will be much 
more apt to defeat the supposed objects of those punishments 
than if the offenders were to have a fair trial, and, if then con- 
victed, were to be punished in some proportion to their offenses. 
You will, however, make this suggestion in a conciliatory tone, 
without allowing it to be supposed that this government has 
any intention to dictate the policy to be adopted by that of the 
Mexican Republic, upon this or any other subject ; but, sup- 
posing their disposition toward the United States to be ami- 
cable, our wish is merely to point a way by which, it seems to 
us, that reciprocal disposition, as well as the integrity of the 
Mexican territory, may be more effectually maintained. Ac- 
customed ourselves to regular judicial proceedings, fair and 
full trials, and mild punishments, the opposites of these, if exer- 
cised by other governments, always serve to check the growth 
of amity and good- will. 

Any reasonable expenses which may be necessary to defray 
the charge of a special messenger from the Mexican capital to 
the place of captivity of young Coombs and his American asso- 
ciates, or for any other proper purposes necessary for their safe- 
ty and liberation, will be borne by this government, and will 
be defrayed by you, and for them you will draw on this depart- 
ment, specifying in your drafts their purpose, and sending with 
them such vouchers as you may be able to procure. 

The interest which we feel for Coombs, whose case has been 
particularly presented to us, and for Mr. Kendall also, will lead 
to the dispatching of this communication in the way most like- 
ly to carry it soon to your hands. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, Daniel Webster. 

To Powhatan Ellis, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary, SfC, Mexico. 

p. S. — Since the above was written, application has been 
made in behalf of Mr. J. C. Howard, a youth of nineteen years 
of age, who was also with the expedition, and who, we are in- 



320 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

formed, was not a citizen of Texas. You will likewise inquire 
into his case, and do for him any thing else which you can do 
with propriety. D. W. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Ellis. 

Department of State, Washington, January 6, 1842. 

Sir, — I addressed you on the 3d instant in behalf of Frank- 
lin Coombs and Mr. Kendall, captured by the Mexican army, 
with the Texan expedition, near Santa Fe. The object of this 
is only to say (what, perhaps, you would not have failed to un- 
derstand) that, if it should be found that other American citi- 
zens were made captives, under like circumstances, and with 
similar claims to immunity and release, you will exert the same 
interference in their behalf. 

I am, with regard, your obedient servant, 

Daniel Webster. 

To Powhatan Ellis, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary, <§-c, Mexico. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Peyton. — [extracts.] 
[private.] 

Washington, January 6, 1842. 

Dear Sir, — Your letter to the President, of the 21st of De- 
cember, has been read by him with great interest and anxiety, 
although it was not the first communication upon the subject. 
Letters had been previously received from General Coombs, and 
information communicated from other quarters, upon which 
immediate steps were taken. A special messenger has been 
dispatched from this department, with an instruction to our 
minister at Mexico, of which I inclose a copy. The President 
will interfere for the life and safety of young Coombs to the full 
extent of his duty. You must be aware of the delicacy of the 
question, at least as it presents itself to us, without more knowl- 
edge of the facts. 

The President wishes the most effectual means taken, con- 
sistent with justice and propriety, to secure his safety. * * * 
On receipt of this, if you should be of opinion that the object in 
view would be promoted by sending a private agent from New 
Orleans to co-operate with the American minister in Mexico, 
the President is willing that such agent, to be selected by you, 
should be immediately dispatched; and his necessary expenses 
will be defrayed by this department. He can not receive any 
public character, as we have a minister on the spot ; but the 
President's great desire to do all that can be done leads him to 
say that if you think a private agency might be useful, he wish- 
es it to be instituted, and that you would select such person as 
you deem the fittest for such July. He the more readily sub- 
mits this part of the case to your discretion, as, before this com- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 321 

munication shall reach New Orleans, you may very probably 
be in possession of much more information than has as yet 
reached us ; and there are likely also to be many citizens of 
New Orleans who are acquainted at Mexico. 

As this agent will have no public character, he can only act 
under direction of the American minister, to whom he will re- 
port himself on his arrival. And the main advantage to be ex- 
pected from such agency is this : that a person of respectabili- 
ty and address, well acquainted with Mexico, its manners and 
language, and perhaps with its present authorities, and ac- 
quainted, also, with the character, family, and connections of 
Coombs, Kendall, and other American citizens who may be in 
like condition, may, by unofficial means and personal efforts, 
co-operate usefully with Mr. Ellis. If you think it advisable, 
on the whole, that such agent be employed, you will give a 
copy of this letter as his instructions. 

The collector of New Orleans will have instructions to con- 
vey Mr. M'Rae to the fittest port in Mexico, by the revenue 
cutter or other the most prompt mode ; and if you should think it 
useful that such private agent as is above mentioned should pro- 
ceed to Mexico, he may use the same conveyance. You will 
see by the inclosed that, although not applied to by his friends, 
Mr. Kendall's case has not been overlooked ; and it is the Pres- 
ident's wish, that if any other American citizen, innocently in 
company with the expedition, should have fallen into the hands 
of the Mexicans, an equal interference may be made in his be- 
half. I am, &c, Daniel Webster. 

Balie Peyton, Esq., United States District Attorney, New Orleans. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Thompson. 

Department of State, Washington, April 15, 1842. 

S lR) — I have to address you upon the subject of those citi- 
zens of the United States who were captured with the Texan 
expedition to Santa Fe, and who, as is believed, were not par- 
ties to that expedition, so far as it was military and hostile to 
Mexico, if, in fact, a hostile invasion of Mexico was among its 
purposes, but accompanied it only as traders, tourists, travelers, 
men of letters, or in other characters and capacities, showing 
them to be non-combatants ; but who, nevertheless, were taken 
and held as prisoners, compelled to undergo incredible hard- 
ships in a winter's march of two thousand miles, and at its end 
subjected to almost every conceivable degree of indignity and 
suffering. 

By the law and practice of civilized nations, enemies' sub- 
jects taken in arms may be made prisoners of war ; but every 
person found in the train of an army is not to be considered as, 
therefore, a belligerent or an enemy. In all wars, and in al! 

X 



322 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

countries, multitudes of persons follow the march of armies, for 
the purpose of traffic or from motives of curiosity, or the influ- 
ence of other causes, who neither expect to be nor reasonably 
can be considered belligerents. Whoever, in the Texan expe- 
dition to Santa Fe, was commissioned or enrolled for the mil- 
itary service of Texas, or, being armed, was in the pay of that 
government, and engaged in an expedition hostile to Mexico, 
may be considered as her enemy, and might lawfully, therefore, 
be detained as prisoner of war. This is not to be doubted; 
and, by the general practice of modern nations, it is true that 
the fact of having been found in arms with others admitted to 
be armed for belligerent purposes raises a presumption of hos- 
tile character. In many cases, and especially in regard to 
European wars in modern times, it might be difficult to repel 
the force of this presumption. It is still, however, but a pre- 
sumption ; because it is nevertheless true that a man may be 
found in arms with no hostile intentions. He may have assum- 
ed arms for other purposes, and may assert a pacific charac- 
ter, with which the fact of his being more or less armed would 
be entirely consistent. In former and less civilized ages, cases 
of this sort existed, without number, in European society. 
When the peace of communities was less firmly established by 
efficient laws, and when, therefore, men often traveled armed 
for their own defense, or when individuals, being armed accord- 
ing to the fashion of the age, yet often journeyed under the 
protection of military escorts or bodies of soldiers, the posses- 
sion of arms was no evidence of hostile character, circumstan- 
ces of the times sufficiently explaining such appearances, con- 
sistently with pacific intentions. And circumstances of the 
country may repel the presumption of hostility as well as cir- 
cumstances of the times, or the manners of a particular age. 
The Texan expedition to Santa Fe, in traversing the vast 
plains between the place from which it set out and that point, 
was to pass through a region which no one thinks of entering 
and crossing without arms, for whatever purpose or with what- 
ever intent he may undertake such enterprise. If he be a hunt- 
er, he is armed ; if a trader, he is armed ; and, usually, traders 
go in considerable bodies, that they may be the better able to 
defend themselves against the roaming savage tribes so con- 
stantly met with in those extensive plains. It is not uncommon, 
indeed, that, for their better defense, companies of traders re- 
tain the service of men at arms, who maintain military order 
and array along the line of their march. When such bodies 
are met with in countries usually traversed by them, no infer- 
ence arises, from the circumstance of their being armed, of any 
intention, on their part, of using such arms for any purpose 
but that of defense. If tourists, or persons wearing any other 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 323 

similar but equally pacific character, set forth on such a jour- 
ney, they are still armed ; armed for subsistence as well as for 
defense. The fact, therefore, of being found in such a country 
with arms does not prove a belligerent or hostile character, 
since nobody, however peaceable, is found there without arms. 
If, therefore, individuals armed only according to the custom 
of the country, but having no hostile purposes of their own, and 
free from all military authority or employment, fall in with or 
follow the march of troops proceeding toward a point of at- 
tack, these individuals are not combatants, and not subject to 
be taken and treated as prisoners. These considerations may 
be applied to those citizens of the United States for whose re- 
lease from imprisonment the interposition of this government 
has been requested. One of those citizens is George Welkins 
Kendall. Mr. Kendall is a man of letters, a highly respectable 
citizen of New Orleans, and was the editor of a literary publi- 
cation carried on at that place. He was fond of travel at those 
seasons of the year when most persons who are able leave the 
city; and having, in all previous tours, made himself acquaint- 
ed with all parts of his own country, and learning, early in the 
spring of 1841, that a trading expedition would start from Tex- 
as to Santa Fe about the first of May, he resolved on joining it. 
as a pleasure excursion of a novel and interesting character. 
His departure and his intentions were publicly announced in 
the paper with which he was concerned at the time of his set- 
ting forth. His object was declared to be to take a personal 
glance over this broad expanse of country, and, thus spending 
the summer, to return either by Missouri or by the way of Low- 
er Mexico, by the usual time when citizens return to New Or- 
leans for the fall business. The expedition, though having a 
military equipment, was represented to him as entirely com- 
mercial in its character, its object being, as was asserted, to 
turn the rich Chihuahua trade into the Texan channel. Mr. 
Kendall was no soldier, no revolutionary adventurer, but a 
man of respectable connections, engaged in prosperous busi- 
ness, and fond of the enjoyments of intellectual and social life. 
It is hardly possible that such a gentleman should have left such 
a condition to form part of a military expedition, subjecting 
himself to all its hazards and all its results, in an attempt to 
subjugate by force of arms a Mexican province five hundred 
or a thousand miles from his home and his connections. 

Before leaving New Orleans, he obtained a passport from 
the Mexican vice consul at that city. This fact, although it 
appears to have been denied, is proved by the testimony of 
Mr. Falconer and Mr. Van Ness. They can hardly be mis- 
taken ; but further evidence on this point may probably be in 
your possession before you receive this dispatch. He armed 



324 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

himself before leaving home, as any other person, of however 
pacific character, would arm himself for such a tour. Such 
was Mr. Kendall's character, such his objects, and such the 
circumstances under which he joined the ill-fated expedition. 

Several other prisoners appear, from the circumstances, to 
have been as little engaged in any hostile design as Mr. Ken- 
dall. John Tompkins is represented to be a citizen of the Unit- 
ed States, from Greene county, Illinois, where his family, con- 
sisting of a wife and five children, still reside. He is a saddler 
by trade, but left the United States with merchandise for Tex- 
as just in time to join the expedition to Santa Fe. His health 
was delicate, and his object was to improve it, to dispose of 
his merchandise for defraying his expenses, and to return to the 
place of his abode by the way of St. Louis. 

David Snively is a man somewhat advanced in life, who be- 
longs to the State of Ohio, where he has a wife and several 
children. He went with the expedition as a trader, and had a 
considerable amount of merchandise with him. 

H. R. Buchanan, of Tennessee, went also as a trader, and took 
with him property of value, which was taken from him. He 
had arrived in Texas only a month before the expedition set out, 
and accompanied it, with his own pack mules and a servant. 

L. B. Sheldon is a member of the Mississippi bar, who ac- 
companied the expedition as a traveler only. He had with 
him a small amount in merchandise, from the sale of which he 
expected to defray his traveling expenses. He had gone to 
Texas in March, 1841, on business which he presumed would 
not detain him longer than two months ; but he subsequently 
resolved to join the expedition for the purpose above mentioned. 

Two persons by the name of Howard were among the cap- 
tives, natives of and residents in this city or its neighborhood. 
They are represented as traders, who had with them merchan- 
dise to the amount of eight or ten thousand dollars. 

Thomas S. Terry, of Hartford, in Connecticut, is believed to 
have gone to Texas in December, 1840, and, being a trader, 
joined the expedition as an escort, for protection against the 
Indians or other freebooters. He did not intend to return to 
Texas, but to trade at Santa Fe, and between that place and 
St. Louis. The circumstances of others who have applied for 
the interposition of this government are less precisely known. 
Whatever evidence may be in this department, or shall be re- 
ceived hereafter, respecting them, will be forwarded to you. 

A demand for Mr. Kendall's release from confinement, as 
well as that of others under equally innocent circumstances, 
has been made by the minister of the United States at Mexico, 
and you will see the correspondence between that minister and 
the Mexican Secretary of State. That correspondence, as 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 325 

you will observe, is principally confined to the case of Mr. 
Kendall. 

The Mexican Secretary objects to his release from confine- 
ment, because he was united with the invading enemies of that 
country, in whose company he was taken, and under whose 
protection he was journeying ; and because the entrance of 
foreigners into Mexico by the Texan frontier, being prohibited 
by a Mexican law, even when such foreigners might be trav- 
eling alone, the prohibition ought to be more strict and severe 
in the case of their entering by the side of soldiers coming to 
invade the country. Because, also, Mr. Kendall was an agent 
of the Texans, or, at least, a member of the expedition to New 
Mexico ; in proof of which, a passage, in the following words, 
is quoted from the New Orleans Picayune of the 21st of De- 
cember last : " A Captain Lewis was one of the commission- 
ers, and the other was Mr. Kendall, editor of the Picayune." 

The Secretary proceeds to assert that those who join invad- 
ers ought to be involved in their fate in respect to such warlike 
measures as it may be necessary to take to repel such invaders ; 
and that, in affairs of this nature, all the presumptions are against 
him who associates himself with an enemy, in whose company 
he is made a prisoner, whatever his intentions may have been. 
The Secretary states, further, that if Mr. Kendall was igno- 
rant of the Mexican law referred to, it is well known not to be 
allowable to plead ignorance of any law which had properly 
been made public. But, supposing that he was ignorant of the 
law, the circumstances of his case, he argues, were such that 
its text could not be literally followed ; for the penalty men- 
tioned was intended to apply to one or two persons only, and 
those without hostile accompaniments, who might present them- 
selves on the frontier ; and that the law did not deprive the 
Mexican government of the right of self-preservation, a right 
derived from the law of nature and nations. The Secretary 
then alludes to documents in the possession of his government, 
which, he says, place Mr. Kendall's conduct in a more serious 
light; but those documents are neither produced nor described. 
The Secretary denies that the paragraph quoted from the news- 
paper was the ground of the proceeding of his government ; 
but says that, proceeding as the paragraph did from Mr. Ken- 
dall's partners in business, it might be considered as impartial, 
and served to strengthen the presumptions against him. He 
denies that it is the duty of his government to allow Mr. Ken- 
dall the benefit of the context of the article from which the par- 
agraph supposed to inculpate him had been quoted, although 
the extract may be used against him. He endeavors to prove 
himself correct in calling Mr. Kendall a commissioner of the 
Texans, and proceeds to define what he understands a com- 



326 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

missioner to be. If Mr. Kendall had a passport, that, he ad- 
mits, would be prima facie evidence in his favor ; and that, if 
it should be ascertained that he had an unconditional passport, 
which had been destroyed by an officer of the Mexican army, 
he should be set at liberty, and that measures had been taken 
to ascertain these facts. 

These reasons appear to be either unfounded in fact, or, if 
true, to furnish no sufficient ground for regarding Mr. Kendall 
as a belligerent enemy, or for declining to comply with the 
demand made by this government in his behalf. In the first 
place, it is said he was united with the invading enemies of the 
country, in whose company he was taken, and under whose 
protection he was journeying. 

That he traveled with the Texans, is true ; but, as has been 
already said, that fact alone does not constitute him a combat- 
ant. It may furnish, in the first instance, a presumption that 
he was so ; but such a presumption may be repelled, and is 
fully repelled, by the circumstances of the case. There would 
be no meaning in that well-settled principle of the law of na- 
tions which exempts men of letters and other classes of non- 
combatants from the liability of being made prisoners of war, 
if it were an answer to every claim for such exemption to say 
that the person making it was united with a military force, or 
journeying under its protection. As to the assertion that it is 
against the law of Mexico for foreigners to pass into it, across 
the line of Texas, it is with no little surprise that the Mexican 
Secretary of State is found to assign this reason for making 
Mr. Kendall a prisoner. The direction of that law only is to 
prohibit the traveler's entrance, or to send him back if he does 
enter. It has no penalty of chains, dungeons, or condemnation 
to the public works. And the Mexican Secretary himself suf- 
ficiently shows that this law has no application to the case, be- 
cause, he says, it was intended only for the case of one, two, 
or a few individuals. Having quoted this law, and then find- 
ing that, in its just import, it furnished no authority for the 
treatment which these citizens of the United States had receiv- 
ed, the Mexican Secretary appears to treat the subject as if 
this law had been set up to assist their claim for liberation ; 
while, in truth, all that Mr. Ellis did, in this respect, was to 
say, that if that law governed the case, then no penalty, no 
punishment, and no treatment of the prisoners could be justi- 
fied but such as had been prescribed by that law ; and there- 
upon the Secretary adroitly denied that the law applies to the 
case at all. In this he is no doubt quite right. 

As to the assertion that Mr. Kendall was an agent of the 
Texans, or a member, properly speaking, of the expedition, 
and the reference, in proof of this assertion, to the article in 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 327 

the newspaper with which he was connected, all this was 
founded in misconstruction, as you will see, of the true import 
of the article itself, even if a newspaper paragraph were fit to 
be regarded in such a case. In the article, Mr. Kendall had 
been called an " avant-courier," merely to signify that he went 
forward, in approaching Santa Fe, in advance of the rest of 
the party. If others went forward for other purposes, he might 
still, in pursuance of his own objects, go with them. But Mr. 
Kendall, not being responsible for this article, or shown to have 
had any knowledge of it, it can not be of the least force against 
him, whatever may be its import. 

The Secretary says, finally, that being found in company 
with an enemy raises a presumption against the party ; but 
the Secretary does not say that this presumption may not be 
rebutted. Why, indeed, does he call it a presumption, unless 
he means that it is a thing calling for explanation, and which 
may be explained ? It is explained, fully and completely. Mr. 
Kendall, as we think, brings himself clearly within the exemp- 
tion of the law of nations, as practiced in modern times ; and 
to insist on presumptions, and to give them the force of conclu- 
sive proofs, in defiance of all repelling proofs, is to render that 
law, in its application to cases of this kind, null and void. If 
it be admitted that, prima facie, the presumption is against Mr. 
Kendall, has he not repelled it ? He has made an effort to do 
so ; but, instead of meeting this effort by argument, and the 
proofs which support it by opposite proofs, the Secretary ap- 
pears to content himself with stating that such is the legal pre- 
sumption ; thus wholly avoiding the true point of the case. 
This government thinks that the facts stated and proved show 
Mr. Kendall to have been no party to the military expedition 
of Texas ; to have had no hostile intention against Mexico ; to 
have entered her territory for no purpose of assisting to make 
war on her citizens, dismember her provinces, or overturn her 
government. 

It does not very satisfactorily appear, from any correspond- 
ence or information now in this department, in what light Mex- 
ico looks upon those persons made prisoners at Santa Fe, whom 
she has a right to consider as engaged in the service of Texas, 
and therefore as her enemies. We must presume that she 
means to regard them as prisoners of war. There is a possi- 
bility, however, that a different mode of considering them may 
be adopted, and that they may be thought to be amenable to 
the municipal laws of Mexico. Any proceeding founded on 
this idea would undoubtedly be attended with the most serious 
consequences. It is now several years since the independence 
of Texas, as a separate government, has been acknowledged 
by the United States, and she has since been recognized m that 



328 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

character by several of the most considerable powers of Eu- 
rope. The war between her and Mexico, which has continued 
so long, and with such success that for a long time there has 
been no hostile foot in Texas, is a public war. and as such it 
has been and will be regarded by this government. It is not 
now an outbreak of rebellion, a fresh insurrection, the parties 
to which may be treated as rebels. The contest, supposed, in- 
deed, to have been substantially ended, has at least advanced 
far beyond that point. It is a public war, and persons captur- 
ed in the course of it, who are to be detained at all, are to be 
detained as prisoners of war, and not otherwise. 

It is true that the independence of Texas has not been recog- 
nized by Mexico. It is equally true that the independence of 
Mexico has only been recently recognized by Spain ; but the 
United States having acknowledged both the independence of 
Mexico before Spain acknowledged it, and the independence 
of Texas, although Mexico has not yet acknowledged it, stands 
in the same relation toward both those governments, and is as 
much bound to protect its citizens in a proper intercourse with 
Texas, against injuries by the government of Mexico, as it 
would have been to protect such citizens in a like intercourse 
with Mexico against injuries by Spain. The period which has 
elapsed since Texas threw oft" the authority of Mexico is near- 
ly as long as the whole duration of the Revolutionary war of 
the United States. No effort for the subjugation of Texas has 
been made bv Mexico, from the time of the battle of San Ja- 
cinto, on the 21st day of April, 1836, until the commencement 
of the present year, and during all this period Texas has 
maintained an independent government, carried on commerce, 
and made treaties with nations in both hemispheres, and kept 
aloof all attempts at invading her territory. If, under these 
circumstances, any citizen of the United States, in whose be- 
half this government has a right on any account or to any extent 
to interfere, should, on a charge of having been found with an 
armed Texan force acting in hostility to Mexico, be brought 
to trial and punished as for a violation of the municipal laws 
of Mexico, or as being her subject, engaged in rebellion, after 
his release has been demanded by this government, consequen- 
ces of the most serious character would certainlv ensue. You 
will, therefore, not fail, should any indication render it neces- 
sary, to point out distinctly to the government of Mexico the 
dangers, should the war between her and Texas continue, of 
considering it, so far as citizens of the United States may be 
concerned, in any other light than that of a public national 
war, in the events and progress of which prisoners may be 
made on both sides, and to whose condition the law and usa- 
ges of nations respecting prisoners of war are justly applicable. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 329 

And this makes it proper that I should draw your particular 
attention to the manner in which the persons taken near Santa 
Fe have been treated, as we are informed. 

Mr. Kendall, and other persons with him, having been car- 
ried to Santa Fe from the place of capture, were there depriv- 
ed of their arms. To this there can be no objection, if we 
consider them as prisoners of war, because prisoners of war 
may be lawfully disarmed by the captor ; but they were also 
despoiled, not only of every article of value about their per- 
sons, but of their clothing also — their coats, their hats, their 
shoes — things indispensable to the long march before them. 
If these facts be not disproved, they constitute an outrage by 
the local authorities of Mexico for which there can be no apol- 
ogy. The privations and indignities to which they were sub- 
jected, during their march of two thousand miles to the city 
of Mexico, at the most inclement season of the year, were hor- 
rible, and, if they were not well authenticated, it would have 
been incredible that they should have been inflicted in this age, 
and in a country calling itself Christian and civilized. During 
many days they had no food, and on others only two ears of 
corn" were distributed to each man. To sustain life, therefore, 
they were compelled to sell, on the way, the few remnants of 
clothing which their captors had left them ; but, by seeking 
thus to appease their hunger, they increased the misery which 
they already endured from exposure to the cold. Most dread- 
ful of all, however, several of them, disabled by sickness and 
suffering from keeping up with the others, were deliberately 
shot without any provocation. Those who survived to their 
journey's end were, many of them, afflicted with loathsome dis- 
ease ; and those whose health was not broken down have been 
treated, not as the public law requires, but in a manner harsh 
and vindictive, and with a degree of severity equal, at least, to 
that usually inflicted by the municipal codes of most civilized 
and Christian states upon the basest felons. Indeed, they ap- 
pear to have been ranked with these ; being thrust into the 
same dungeons with Mexican malefactors, chained to them in 
pairs, and when allowed to see the light and breathe the air 
of heaven, required, as a compensation therefor, to labor, be- 
neath the lash of a task-master, upon roads and public works 
of that country. 

The government of the United States has no inclination to 
interfere in the war between Mexico and Texas, for the bene- 
fit or protection of individuals, any further than its clear duties 
require. But if citizens of the United States who have not re- 
nounced, nor intended to renounce, their allegiance to their 
own government, nor have entered into the military service of 
any other government, have nevertheless been found so con- 



330 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

nected with armed enemies of Mexico as that they may be 
lawfully captured and detained as prisoners of war, it is still 
the duty of this government to take so far a concern in their 
welfare as to see that, as prisoners of war, they are treated 
according to the usage of modern times and civilized states. 

Indeed, although the rights or the safety of none of their own 
citizens were concerned, yet if, in a war waged between two 
neighboring states, the killing, enslaving, or cruelly treating of 
prisoners should be indulged, the United States would feel it to 
be their duty, as well as their right, to remonstrate and to inter- 
fere against such a departure from the principles of humanity 
and civilization. These principles are common principles, es- 
sential alike to the welfare of all nations, and in the preserva- 
tion of which all nations have, therefore, rights and interests. 
But their duty to interfere becomes imperative in cases affect- 
ing their own citizens. 

It is, therefore, that the government of the United States pro- 
tests against the hardships and cruelties to which the Santa Fe 
prisoners have been subjected. It protests against this treat- 
ment in the name of humanitv and the law of nations ; in the 
name of all Christian states ; in the name of civilization and the 
spirit of the age ; in the name of all republics ; in the name of 
Liberty herself, enfeebled and dishonored by all cruelty and all 
excess ; in the name of and for the honor of this whole hemi- 
sphere. It protests emphatically and earnestly against practi- 
ces belonging only to barbarous people in barbarous times. 

By the well-established rules of national law, prisoners of 
war are not to be treated harshly, unless personally guilty to- 
ward him who has them in his power ; for he should remem- 
ber that they are men, and unfortunate. 

When an enemy is conquered, and submits, a great soul for- 
gets all resentment, and is entirely filled with compassion for 
him. This is the humane language of the law of nations ; and 
this is the sentiment of high honor among men. The law of 
war forbids the wounding, killing, impressment into the troops 
of the country, or the enslaving or otherwise maltreating of 
prisoners of war, unless they have been guilty of some grave 
crime ; and from the obligation of this law no civilized state 
can discharge itself. 

Every nation, on being received, at her own request, into the 
circle of civilized governments, must understand that she not 
only attains rights of sovereignty and the dignity of national 
character, but that she binds herself also to the strict and faith- 
ful observance of all those principles, laws, and usages which 
have obtained currency among civilized states, and which have 
for their object the mitigation of the miseries of war. 

No community can be allowed to enjoy the benefit of na- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 331 

tional character, in modern times, without submitting to all the 
duties which that character imposes. A Christian people, who 
exercise sovereign power, who make treaties, maintain diplo- 
matic relations with other states, and who should yet refuse to 
conduct its military operations according to the usages univers- 
ally observed by such states, would present a character singu- 
larly inconsistent and anomalous. 

This government will not hastily suppose that the Mexican 
republic will assume such a character. 

There is yet another very important element arising out of 
the facts of this case. 

It is asserted and believed that the surrender of some of the 
persons connected with the expedition was made upon specific 
terms, which were immediately violated by the local Mexican 
authorities. If there is one rule of the law of war more clear 
and peremptory than another, it is that compacts between en- 
emies, such as truces and capitulations, shall be faithfully ad- 
hered to ; and their non-observance is denounced as being man- 
ifestly at variance with the true interest and duty, not only of 
the immediate parties, but of all mankind. Consequently, if the 
surrender of the expedition, or any part of it, was conditional, 
the benefit of those conditions must be insisted upon in favor 
of Mr. Kendall. According to the statement of Messrs. Fal- 
coner and Van Ness, Mr. Kendall proceeded two hundred miles 
in advance of the main body, and was taken with his compan- 
ions while they were displaying a flag of truce ; and the per- 
sons who took them gave assurances that they should not be 
held as prisoners of war. 

Here, then, was a special immunity promised, but afterward 
notoriously withheld, as we are bound to believe in the present 
state of our information upon the subject. If, therefore, this 
government were not entitled to demand Mr. Kendall's release 
on the grounds of his having been a non-combatant and a neu- 
tral, it might require the government of Mexico to take care 
that the stipulation of its authorized agents to that effect be 
scrupulously fulfilled, and that, on this account, those to whom 
the promise was made should be immediately released, accord- 
ing to that promise. 

In conclusion, I am directed by the President of the United 
States now to instruct you that, on the receipt of this dispatch, 
you inquire carefully and minutely into the circumstances of 
all those persons who, having been taken near Santa Fe, and 
having claimed the interposition of this government, are still 
held as prisoners in Mexico, and you will demand of the Mex- 
ican government the release of such of them as appear to have 
been innocent traders, travelers, invalids, men of letters, or for 
any other reasons justly esteemed non-combatants, being citi- 



332 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

zens of the United States. To this end it may be proper to direct 
the consul to proceed to the places where any of them may be 
confined, and to take their statements under oath, as also the 
statements of other persons to whom they may respectively re- 
fer. If the Mexican government deny facts upon which any 
of the parties claim their release, and desire time for further in- 
vestigation of their respective cases, or any of them, proper 
and suitable time must be allowed ; but if any of the persons 
described in the next preceding paragraph, and for whose re- 
lease you shall have made a demand, shall still be detained, 
for the purpose of further inquiry or otherwise, you will then 
explicitly demand of the Mexican government that they be 
treated henceforward with all the lenity which, in the most fa- 
vorable cases, belongs to the rights of prisoners of war ; that 
they be not confined in loathsome dungeons, with malefactors 
and persons diseased ; that they be not chained, or subjected 
to ignominy, or to any particular rigor in their detention ; that 
they be not obliged to labor on the public works, or put to any 
other hardship. You will state to the Mexican government 
that the government of the United States entertains a convic- 
tion that these persons ought to be set at liberty without de- 
lay; that it will feel great dissatisfaction if it shall still learn 
that Mr. Kendall, whose case has already been made the sub- 
ject of an express demand, and others of equal claims to liber- 
ation, be not set at liberty at the time when you receive this 
dispatch ; but that, if the government of Mexico insists upon 
detaining any of them for further inquiry, it is due to the gov- 
ernment of the United States, to its desire to preserve peace 
and harmony with Mexico, and to justice and humanity, that, 
while detained, these persons should enjoy, to the fullest extent, 
the rights of prisoners of war ; and that it expects that a de- 
mand so just and reasonable, a demand respectfully made by 
one friendly state to another, will meet with immediate com- 
pliance. Having made this demand, you will wait for an an- 
swer ; and if within ten days you shall not receive assurances 
that all of the persons above mentioned, who may still be de- 
tained, will be thenceforward treated in the manner which has 
now been insisted upon, you will hold no further official inter- 
course with the government of Mexico until you shall receive 
further directions from your own government. You will there- 
upon communicate with this department, detaining for that pur- 
pose the messenger who carries this. In your communication 
you will state, as fully and as accurately as possible, the cir- 
cumstances of each man's case, as they may appear by all the 
evidence which at that time may be possessed by the legation. 
In making your demand for the better treatment of the pris- 
oners, you will take especial care not to abandon or weaken 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 333 

the claim for their release, nothing more being intended in that 
respect than that proper time should be allowed to the gov- 
ernment of Mexico to make such further inquiries as may be 
necessary. 

Your predecessor has already been directed that, if any of 
the persons suffer for the want of the common necessaries of 
life, he should provide for such wants until otherwise supplied: 
a direction which you will also observe. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, Daniel Webster. 

Waddy Thompson, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- } 
potentiary of the United States to the Mexican Republic. ) 



CAPTAIN JONES'S ATTACK ON MONTEREY. 

Message from the President of the United States, in reply to the 
Resolution of the House of Representatives of the 2d of Febru- 
ary, calling for Information in Relation to the taking Posses- 
sion of Monterey by Commodore Thomas Ap Catesby Jones, 
February 22, 1843. 

To the House of Representatives of the United States : 

A resolution has been communicated to me, which was 
adopted by the House of Representatives on the 2d instant, in 
the following terms : 

" Resolved, That the President of the United States be re- 
quested to inform this House by what authority and under 
whose instructions Captain Thomas Ap Catesby Jones, com- 
mander of the squadron of the United States in the Pacific 
Ocean, did, on or about the 19th of October last, invade in war- 
like array the territories of the Mexican Republic, take posses- 
sion of the town of Monterey, and declare himself the com- 
mander of the naval and military expedition for the occupation 
of the Californias. 

" Resolved, That the President of the United States be re- 
quested to communicate to this House copies of all the instruc- 
tions given by him, or under his authority, to the said Captain 
Jones, from the time of his appointment to the command of the 
said squadron ; also, copies of all communications received 
from him relating to his expedition for the occupation of the 
Californias ; and also to inform this House whether orders 
have been dispatched to the said Captain Jones recalling him 
from his command." 

The proceeding of Captain Jones, in taking possession of the 
town of Monterey, in the possessions of Mexico, was entirely 
of his own authority, and not in consequence of any orders or 
instructions of any kind given to him by the government of the 
United States. For that proceeding he has been recalled, and 



334 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

the letter recalling him will be found among the papers here- 
with communicated. 

The resolution of the House of Representatives asks for 
"copies of all the instructions given to Captain Jones, from the 
time of his appointment to the command of the said squadron ; 
also, copies of all communications received from him relating 
to his expedition for the occupation of the Californias," without 
confining the request to such instructions and correspondence 
as relate to the transactions at Monterey, and without the usual 
reservation of such portions of the instructions or correspond- 
ence as, in the President's judgment, could not be made public 
without prejudice or danger to the public interests. 

It may well be supposed that cases may arise, even in time 
of peace, in which it would be highly injurious to the country 
to make public, at a particular moment, the instructions under 
which a commander may be acting on a distant and foreign 
service. In such a case, should it arise, and in all similar cases, 
the discretion of the executive can not be controlled by the re- 
quest of either House of Congress for the communication of pa- 
pers. The duties which the Constitution and the laws devolve 
on the President must be performed by him under his official 
responsibility ; and he is not at liberty to disregard high inter- 
ests or thwart important public objects by untimely publica- 
tions, made against his own judgment, by whomsoever such 
publications may be requested. In the present case, not seeing 
that any injury is likely to arise from so doing, I have directed 
copies of all the papers asked for to be communicated. And 
I avail myself of the opportunity of transmitting, also, copies of 
sundry letters, as noted below. John Tyler. 

Washington, February 18, 1843. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Thompson. 

Department of State, Washington, January 17, 1843. 

Sir, — Your dispatches to No. — , inclusive, and your private 
letter of the 15th ultimo, have been received. 

Although the department is without official intelligence of 
the seizure of Monterey by Commodore Jones, in command of 
the United States squadron in the Pacific, it is deemed proper 
that no time should be lost in acquainting the Mexican govern- 
ment that the transaction was entirely unauthorized. If, there- 
fore, the account of that event should prove to be authentic, 
you will take occasion to inform the Minister for Foreign Af- 
fairs orally that Commodore Jones had no warrant from this 
government for the proceeding, and that the President exceed- 
ingly regrets its occurrence. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, Daniel Webster. 

Waddy Thompson, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary of the United States, Mexico. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 335 



Mr. Webster to General Almonte. 

Department of State, Washington, January 21, 1843. 

The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, 
has the honor to communicate to General Almonte, envoy ex- 
traordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the Mexican Repub- 
lic, a copy of an instruction which has been addressed by this 
department to the minister of the United States at Mexico, 
upon the subject of the reported seizure of Monterey, on the 
Mexican coast, by Commodore Jones, in command of the Unit- 
ed States squadron in the Pacific. 

The undersigned avails himself of the occasion to offer Gen- 
eral Almonte renewed assurances of his very distinguished con- 
sideration. Daniel Webster. 
General Don J. N. Almonte, &c. 

General Almonte to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 

Mexican Legation, Washington, January 24, 1843. 

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo- 
tentiary of the Mexican Republic near the government of the 
United States of America, has the honor to acknowledge the 
receipt of the note which the Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary 
of State, was pleased to address to him on the 21st instant, in- 
closing a copy of the instructions addressed by him, on the 17th 
instant, to Mr. Waddy Thompson, the American minister at 
Mexico, respecting the capture of Monterey, in Upper Califor- 
nia, by Commodore Jones. 

The undersigned expected no less from the sense of justice 
of the Hon. Mr. Webster's government ; he, however, regrets to 
observe that, in the instructions given to the aforesaid Mr. 
Waddy Thompson, minister of the United States at Mexico, 
while it is denied that the proceedings of Commodore Jones 
were authorized, the declaration is omitted that he will be ex- 
emplarily punished for the extraordinary act of excess \inau- 
clito atentado~\ committed by him, in violating the faith of treat- 
ies, and abusing the hospitality with which the peaceful in- 
habitants of Monterey were preparing to receive him. The 
undersigned will, nevertheless, without loss of time, communi- 
cate to his government the note from the Hon. Mr. Webster, 
and the accompanying copy of the instructions ; but he will, in 
the mean time, inform the Secretary of State that he has just 
received communications and instructions from his Excellency 
the Minister of Foreign Relations of Mexico, wherein he is di- 
rected to press for the immediate satisfaction and indemnifica- 
tion which his government expects to receive from this republic. 

The Hon. Mr. Webster will have already been informed of the 
tenor of the communication addressed to Mr. Waddy Thomp- 



336 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

son, on the 1 9th of December last, by the Mexican government ; 
and the undersigned doubts not, from the good faith of the gov- 
ernment of the United States, that, in reparation of the scandal- 
ous infraction of the treaty of friendship, commerce, and naviga- 
tion existing between the two republics, committed by one of its 
officers who has invoked its name, the said officer will be exem- 
plarily punished, as a warning to other chiefs, who, incited by 
his example, might be disposed to commit excesses of equal 
enormity, if they could be pardoned by their own government. 
The delinquency of Commodore Jones is so serious, so obvious, 
and so notorious, that it would be superfluous to particularize 
its enormities. 

The undersigned trusts that the government of the United 
States will repair the losses and injuries inflicted by the said 
Commodore Jones, as well on the inhabitants of Monterey as 
on the Mexican Republic. This is an act of rigorous justice, 
which Mexico has a right to expect, and which it is confident 
of obtaining if, as she believes, and as the Hon. Mr. Webster 
assures, her government is a government of law. 

The undersigned, being desirous for the removal of every 
obstacle to the intimacy of the relations of friendship and good 
understanding which should subsist between two friendly na- 
tions, bound by solemn treaties, and anticipating a happy result 
to their communications with each other (as he has no grounds 
for believing the contrary), requests the Hon. Mr. Webster, 
Secretary of State, to have the kindness to submit the contents 
of this note to his Excellency the President, and to communicate 
to him the resolution of his excellency as soon as possible, in 
order that he may avail himself of the departure of a messen- 
ger, whom the undersigned proposes to dispatch to Mexico, 
and who will quit this city on the 27th instant. 

The undersigned embraces the opportunity here afforded to 
repeat to the Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, the as- 
surances of his distinguished consideration. 

J. N. Almonte. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 

Mr. Webster to General Almonte. 

Department of State, Washington, January 30, 1843. 

The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, 
has had the honor to receive the note of the 24th instant of 
General Almonte, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo- 
tentiary of the Mexican Republic. 

Genera] Almonte has already been made acquainted with 
the instruction addressed from this department, on the 17th in- 
stant, to the minister of the United States at Mexico, respect- 
ing the transaction at Monterey, in Upper California, in which 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 337 

Commodore Jones was concerned ; but General Almonte now 
expresses his regret that he sees in that instruction no decla- 
ration that Commodore Jones will be exemplarily punished for 
the extraordinary act of excess committed by him, in violation 
of the faith of treaties, and in abuse of the hospitality with 
which the peaceable inhabitants of Monterey were prepared to 
receive him. 

The undersigned has the honor to inform General Almonte, 
that, before the receipt of his note, the President had given di- 
rections for the adoption of such a course of proceeding toward 
Commodore Jones as, in his opinion, was due to the circumstan- 
ces of the case, to the preservation of the principle and prac- 
tice of absolute and entire abstinence, on the part of military 
power, from all aggression in time of peace, and especially due 
to the friendly relations at the present time happily subsisting 
between the United States and Mexico. 

But General Almonte and his government must see that 
Commodore Jones intended no indignity to the government of 
Mexico, nor any thing unlawful toward her citizens. Unfortu- 
nately, he supposed, as he asserts, that a state of war actually 
existed, at the time, between the two countries. If this suppo- 
sition had been well founded, all that he did would have been 
justifiable ; so that, whatever of imprudence or impropriety he 
may be chargeable with, there is nothing to show that he in- 
tended any affront to the honor of the Mexican government, or 
to violate the relations of peace. 

General Almonte is aware of some of the circumstances in 
which this belief of the actual existence of a state of hostilities 
probably might have had its origin. It is not deemed necessa- 
ry nowto advert to those circumstances, nor is it at present 
known to the government of the United States what other 
causes may have existed to strengthen this belief, or to make 
it general along the western shore of this Continent. In the 
clearly manifest absence of all illegal and improper intent, 
some allowance may be properly extended toward acts of in- 
discretion in a quarter so very remote, and in which correct 
information of distant events is not soon or easily obtained. 

If, in this transaction, citizens of Mexico have received any 
injury in their persons or property, the government of the Unit- 
ed States will undoubtedly feel itself bound to make ample rep- 
aration ; and the representations of General Almonte on thai, 
subject will receive the most respectful and immediate consid- 
eration. 

Happily, no lives were lost ; nor is it understood that any 
considerable injury was suffered by any one. 

The undersigned is directed by the President to assure Gen- 
eral Almonte and his government that the government of the 

Y 



338 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

United States will at all times be among the last to authorize 
or justify any aggression on the territory of a nation with whom 
it is at peace, or any indignity to its government. Sensibly 
alive to any indignity, if offered to itself, it is equally resolved 
to give no such cause of offense to its neighbors. And the un- 
dersigned is directed to assure General Almonte and his gov- 
ernment of the pain and the surprise which the President expe- 
rienced on receiving information of this transaction. Under 
these assurances, the President hopes that it may pass away 
without leaving in the mind of the government of Mexico any 
other feeling than that in which the government of the United 
States entirely partakes : a feeling of deep regret at what has 
happened, and a conviction that no such unfortunate and unau- 
thorized occurrence ought in any degree to impair the amica- 
ble relations subsisting between the two countries, so evidently 
to the advantage of both. 

The undersigned has been made acquainted with the commu- 
nication addressed by the Mexican Secretary of State to the 
minister of the United States at Mexico, and with the answer 
of the latter gentleman to that communication. 

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to offer Gen- 
eral Almonte renewed assurances of his most distinguished con- 
sideration. Daniel Webster. 

General Don J. N. Almonte, &c. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 339 



RELATIONS WITH SPAIN. 

SCHOONER "AMISTAD." 

Message from the Pi-esident of the United States, transmitting 
sundry Letters between the Department of State and the Chev- 
alier d'Argaiz, on the Subject of the Schooner " Amistad? 
February 27th, 1842. 

To the House of Representatives : 

I transmit to Congress sundry letters which have passed 
between the Department of State and the Chevalier d'Argai'z, 
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Spain near 
the government of the United States, on the subject of the 
schooner "Amistad," since the last communication of papers 
connected with that case. This correspondence will show the 
general grounds on which the Spanish minister expresses dis- 
satisfaction with the decision of the Supreme Court in that case, 
and the answers which have been made to his complaints by 
the Department of State. 

In laying these papers before Congress, I think it proper to 
observe that the allowance of salvage on the cargo does not 
appear to have been a subject of discussion in the Supreme 
Court. Salvage had been denied in the court below, and from 
that part of the decree no appeal had been claimed. 

The 9th article of the treaty between the United States and 
Spain provides that " all ships and merchandise, of what nature 
soever, which shall be rescued out of the hands of any pirates 
or robbers on the high seas, shall be brought into some port of 
either state, and shall be delivered to the custody of the officers 
of that port, in order to be taken care of, and restored entire 
to the true proprietor, as soon as due and sufficient proof shall 
be made concerning the property thereof." The case of the 
"Amistad," as was decided by the court, was not a case of 
piracy, and therefore not within the terms of the treaty. Yet 
it was a case in which the authority of the master, officers, and 
crew of the vessel had been divested by force, and in that con- 
dition the vessel, having been found on the coast, was brought 
into a port of the United States ; and it may deserve consider- 
ation that the salvors in this case were the officers and seamen 
of a public ship. 

It is left to Congress to consider, under these circumstances, 
whether, although, in strictness, salvage may have been lawfully 
due, it might not yet be wise to make provision to refund it, as 
a proof of the entire good faith of the government, and of its 



340 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

disposition to fulfill all its treaty stipulations, to their full extent, 
under a fair and liberal construction. John Tyler. 

Washington, February 27, 1843. 

The Chevalier d'Argaiz to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 

Washington, April 5, 1841. 

The Chevalier d'Argaiz had the honor to receive, with the 
Secretary of State's note of the 3d instant, copies of two letters 
received at his department relative to the slave Antonio. They 
contain some inaccuracies, which will not, however, be indica- 
ted, as they are of no importance. 

The late Secretary of State, on learning the decision of the 
District Court of Connecticut, informed the Chevalier d'Argaiz 
that the slave Antonio was at his disposal, and the Chevalier 
d'Argaiz, in consequence, determined to bring him to his own 
house, until there should be a proper opportunity to send him to 
Havana ; and, when about to carry this determination into ef- 
fect, Mr. Forsyth informed him that the district attorney of Con- 
necticut had declared that it would be necessary for the slave 
Antonio to remain in that state until the cause should be brought 
by appeal before the Circuit Court, on account of the great 
value of his evidence. To this the Chevalier d'Argaiz assent- 
ed, and since that time he has heard nothing of the said negro. 

Circumstances have, however, been entirely altered, by the 
decision of the Supreme Court ; and, according to the informa- 
tion received by the Chevalier d'Argaiz, it is very probable 
that the negro will not reach Havana, if he should take upon 
himself the charge of sending him there. For which reason, 
he conceives that the government of the United States will be 
better able to insure his arrival at that island, where the consul 
of the Union may deliver him to his master. 

The Chevalier d'Argaiz avails himself of this occasion to re- 
peat to the Secretary of State the assurances of his high con- 
sideration. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 

The Chevalier d' 'Arga'iz to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 

Washington, April 11, 1841. 

Sir, — Her majesty's vice-consul at Boston writes to me, un- 
der date of the 7th instant, as follows : 

" I have just received from the marshal of Connecticut a let- 
ter, of which this is a literal translation. Since my last letter 
to you, respecting the case of the negro Antonio, my conjec- 
tures have been realized, though in a different manner. At 
that time I supposed and feared that the self-styled friends of 
the Africans would solicit a writ of habeas corpus for his liber- 
ation; but they adopted another method. The jailer allowed 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL TAPERS. 341 

the boy to go about the house and assist in the labors of the 
kitchen and in waiting at table. The said friends availed 
themselves of every opportunity to preach to him about liber- 
ty, and at length induced him to go away ; they placed him on 
board the steam-boat on Monday morning last, and he went to 
New York. I followed him to that city, where Lewis Tappan, 
the leader of the abolitionists, informed me that Antonio was in 
town, but that he would not be delivered to me, and that ar- 
rangements had been made for sending him elsewhere. I could 
not meet him myself. I regret this occurrence very much, 
and fear that he is beyond our reach. If, however, I should 
succeed in finding him any where, you shall receive immediate 



notice." 



By the letters from Mr. Baldwin, of the 21st of March last, 
and from Mr. Andrew Judson, of the 20th of the same, which 
you were pleased to send me with your note of April 3d, it 
appeared that the negro Antonio persisted in desiring to return 
to Havana ; from which it may be inferred that, in order to 
make him change that determination, seduction or deception 
must have been employed, perhaps by persons whom his dec- 
larations might have affected (comprometer) ; and I do not un- 
derstand why the marshal of Connecticut, whom Lewis Tap- 
pan informed that the said negro was in the city, did not take 
any measures to engage the authorities of that place, either 
with the view to recover him or to have him placed on board 
a vessel for Havana. 

In virtue of what is here stated, I have considered it my 
duty to make this communication to you, sir, having no doubt 
that you would take the necessary measures to have the slave 
Antonio restored to his owner. 

I repeat to you, sir, the assurances of my distinguished con- 
sideration. P. A. d'Argaiz. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 

Mr. Fletcher Webster to the Chevalier d'Argaiz. 

Department of State, Washington, May 3, 18-11. 

Sir, — In the absence of the Secretary of State, I have the 
honor of replying to your note of the 1 1 th of April last, relating 
to the negro Antonio. I have laid it before the President, and 
am directed by him to say, that he regrets very much the oc- 
currence of any event that seems at all likely to defer or de- 
lay the final and satisfactory settlement of the affair of the 
" Amistad." 

Inquiry will be immediately directed to be made by the 
proper officers in order to discover the slave Antonio ; and I 
shall have much pleasure in communicating to you the earliest 
information received at the department of the success of such 
investigation. 



342 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

I avail myself of this occasion to offer you the assurances of 
my very high consideration. 

Fletcher Webster, Acting Secretary of State. 

The Chevalier d'Argaiz, &c. 

The Chevalier d'Argaiz to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 

Washington, May 29, 1841. 

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo- 
tentiary of her Catholic majesty, has the honor, in compliance 
with what was agreed on with the Secretary of State in their 
last conference, to make known to him the conviction of the un- 
dersigned that the 6th article, as also the 8th, 9th, and 10th, of 
the treaty of 1795, have not been properly carried into execu- 
tion (or effect), in the affair of the schooner " Amistad," as he 
conceives that he has proved in his correspondence. The sub- 
jects of her Catholic majesty have not received the assistance 
expressed in those articles, nor have their properties been re- 
spected, as is stipulated in the said articles; and this must have 
been understood by the attorney-general, Mr. Grundy, as ap- 
pears by the opinion which he gave in November, 1839. 

The government of the Union gave to this affair a course, 
forced, illegal, and contrary to the intention of the contracting 
parties. 

The undersigned protested against it in due time, making the 
government of the United States responsible for consequences. 
Aware, however, of the embarrassed situation of the actual ad- 
ministration, and that a change of circumstances has rendered 
it impossible now to effect the fulfillment of that treaty, the un- 
dersigned believes he ought to demand, as he now does, 

1. Indemnification for the vessel called the "Amistad." 

2. Indemnification for her cargo, including the negroes found 
on board. 

3. Indemnification for the losses and injuries suffered by (or 
inflicted on) the Spanish subjects, Don Pedro Montes and Don 
Jose Ruiz, during their unjust imprisonment. 

4. The assurance that the course given to this affair shall 
never serve as a precedent in analogous cases which may oc- 
cur. 

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to repeat to 
the Secretary of State the assurances of his high consideration. 

P. A. d'Argaiz. 

Hon. Daniel Webster. 

Mr. Webster to the Chevalier d'Argaiz. 

Department of State, Washington, September 1, 1841. 

The undersigned has the honor to acknowledge the receipt 
of the note of M. d'Argaiz, envoy extraordinary and minister 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 343 

plenipotentiary of her Catholic majesty, of the 29th of May, in 
which he makes known to the undersigned his conviction that 
the sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth articles of the treaty of 1795, 
between the two countries, have not properly been carried into 
execution, in the affair of the "Ainistad," as he conceives he 
has proved in his correspondence, and demands : 1st, indemni- 
fication for the vessel called the " Amistad ;" 2d, indemnification 
for the cargo, including the negroes found on board ; 3d, indem- 
nification for the losses and injuries suffered by (or inflicted on) 
the Spanish subjects, Don Pedro Montes and Don Jose Ruiz, 
during their unjust imprisonment ; and, 4th, the assurance that 
the course given to this affair shall never serve as a precedent 
for any analogous cases that may occur. 

This note has been laid before the President, and the under- 
signed has been by him instructed to reply as follows : 

The President had supposed that, after the decision of the 
Supreme Court of the United States upon this question, there 
would have been no occasion to renew a correspondence upon 
it between the two governments, and that M. d'Argaiz was 
aware that the President had no power to review or alter any 
of the judgments of that court, it being a tribunal wholly inde- 
pendent of the executive, and one whose decisions must be re- 
garded as final and conclusive upon all questions brought be- 
fore it. He had hoped, too, that its decree would have proved 
satisfactory to M. d'Argaiz and the government of Spain, and 
that the facts proved, and the arguments offered before it, to- 
gether with the able opinions delivered by its members in ren- 
dering the decree, would have prevented all disagreement or 
dissatisfaction with the result to which they arrived. The 
court was guided, in its deliberations, as well by the treaty be- 
tween the two countries as by the laws of nations and of the 
United States, and it is not for the executive to question that 
its decree was in exact conformity with the obligations imposed 
upon it by that treaty and those laws. 

No branch of the government of the United States, whether 
legislative, executive, or judiciary, can have been influenced 
bv any other motives than those of a sincere desire to perform 
all the duties, and fulfill all the requirements exacted of either 
by the terms of the treaty between this government and Spain, 
with respect to her national character and sovereignty, and with 
a view of preserving and strengthening the friendly relations 
which have so long and so happily subsisted between them ; 
and the undersigned hopes that M. d'Argaiz himself will event- 
ually join in approbation of the course adopted, convinced, as 
he must be, of the friendly disposition of all branches of this 
government toward his own. 

The articles to which M. d'Argaiz refers, as containing stip- 



344 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPEKS. 

ulations which have not been carried into effect in the case of 
the "Amistad," relate to the defense and protection of the persons 
or property of the subjects or citizens of either country which 
shall come within the jurisdiction of the other, by sea or land. 

Of those cited, the ninth article, which provides for the safe 
keeping and restoration of ships and merchandise rescued from 
the hands of pirates and robbers, which it declares shall be re- 
stored to their true proprietor, after due and sufficient proof 
shall be made concerning the property thereof, seems the most 
applicable to the case under consideration. 

The undersigned, after a careful consideration of all the ar- 
guments offered by M. d'Argaiz, and an examination of the facts 
which have been made known, is unable to see in what partic- 
ular this article, or any stipulation contained in it, has been vio- 
lated or disregarded, or that the course given to this affair has 
been in any manner contrary to the spirit and intention of any 
part of the treaty. 

Upon the arrival of the schooner " Amistad" near our coast, 
it was, with all its cargo, according to the provisions of the 
ninth article, taken into the custody of the officers of the near- 
est port. 

In consequence of a claim preferred for salvage by those 
who had saved both vessel and cargo, and rescued the subjects 
of Spain from death, or perhaps imprisonment enduring for life 
among the savage inhabitants of Africa, the subject of the own- 
ership of the vessel and cargo was brought before the courts. 
Before those courts, also, the subjects of Spain submitted their 
answer to these claims and their complaints ; with how much 
magnanimity refusing compliance with a just demand for serv- 
ices rendered them at such time and such a situation, the un- 
dersigned will not undertake to say. Besides the common ar- 
ticles of merchandise and traffic, there was found on board a 
number of negroes, claimed as the lawful property of Spanish 
subjects, and said to form part of the cargo ; and on these also, 
as part of the cargo, salvage was claimed by those who had 
saved them for their owners, if they had any, and their pretend- 
ed owners from them. 

The whole subject, then, of the ownership of the vessel, and 
of all the cargo, came properly and legally before the courts, 
who proceeded, as was their duty under the treaty, on the pre- 
sentment of such a case, to investigate it carefully, deliberately, 
and circumspectly. 

Thus proceeding, the courts, upon the testimony before them, 
decided ; awarding the vessel to its lawful owner, and the car- 
go to its respective lawful owners, and a certain amount of sal- 
vage to those who had been instrumental in saving both. It 
was found by the courts that the negroes were not the lawful 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 345 

property of any one, and no part of the cargo, and, consequent- 
ly, subject to no claim for salvage, but that they were freemen, 
captured and sold, and held in bondage, contrary as well to the 
laws of Spain as of the United States ; and the courts, in the 
just exercise of their power, decided, as they were bound to do, 
under existing laws and treaties, and upon the facts as they ap- 
peared. M. d'Arga'iz demands indemnification for the vessel 
and cargo, including the negroes found on board. Were this 
government conscious of having inflicted injury upon any, 
whether a private individual or a powerful nation, indemnifica- 
tion would be readily granted ; but the question of the existence 
of any such injury must be determined by the government itself. 
In this case the undersigned is of opinion that no injury has been 
done to any one of the subjects of Spain, but, on the contrary, 
that the government has gone quite as far in granting them pro- 
tection, and manifesting a favorable disposition toward them, 
as the circumstances under which they came within its notice 
could demand of it. 

What injury has been inflicted on the subjects of Spain, own- 
ers of the vessel and cargo, by saving both from complete de- 
struction, or from entire loss to them, and returning both to 
them when their legal claims were ascertained? what injury 
inflicted on those presenting claims to the negroes as slaves, 
by refusing to allow those claims, proved to be unfounded, and, 
by all provisions of the code of either country, illegal and crim- 
inal ? M. d'Arga'iz will recollect, besides, that in his note of 
the 26th of November, 1839, he demands these negroes, not as 
property, but as criminals, or, in his own language, " not as 
slaves, but as assassins." Had they been at any time slaves, 
they would have become, by their killing and escape from law- 
ful bondage, assassins and pirates, whose delivery to the gov- 
ernment of Spain is not provided for in any stipulation of the 
treaty of 1795, and which would have been a matter of comity 
only, not to be demanded as a right. The one point involves 
the other, and a refusal to deliver them, certainly, is no viola- 
tion or neglect of any obligation. But the undersigned does 
not propose to enter into any argument upon a subject which 
has already been discussed at length, both before the courts 
and between the two governments. M. d'Arga'iz demands, 
also, indemnification for injuries suffered by or inflicted on the 
subjects of Spain, in the persons of Messrs. Ruiz and Montes. 
For any such losses or injuries inflicted on these persons by 
any one within the jurisdiction of the United States, this gov- 
ernment offers reparation and indemnification through its 
courts, which stand open to hear their complaints, to ascertain 
and repair their wrongs, and punish the wrong-doers. 

The undersigned, therefore, is instructed to say, that this 



340 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

government does not perceive with what justice any such de- 
mands as M. d'Argaiz has presented can be made on it, and 
confidently expects that all will agree in justifying and approv- 
ing the course which it has adopted in regard to the affair. 
M. d'Argaiz demands, lastly, "the assurance that the course 
given to this affair shall never serve as a precedent in any 
analogous cases which may occur." 

While the undersigned hopes that no misfortune of the kind 
will ever again take place upon our coast or elsewhere, and 
that no circumstances may ever again give rise to such occur- 
rences as those which mark the affair of the "Amistad" from 
the commencement of her voyage, he assures M. d'Argaiz that 
the government of the United States will endeavor to discharge 
itself of all obligations imposed upon it with strict justice, hon- 
orably to itself, and respectfully toward those nations with 
whom it maintains amicable relations. 

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to offer to 
M. d'Argaiz the assurance of his very high regard and distin- 
guished consideration. Daniel Webster. 

The Chevalier d'Argaiz, &c. 

The Chevalier d'Argaiz to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 

Bordentown, September 24, 1841. 

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo- 
tentiary of her Catholic majesty, has the honor to acknowledge 
the receipt of the note which the Secretary of State of the Fed- 
eral government of the Union was pleased to address to him, 
under date of the 1st instant, in answer to the letter from the 
undersigned of the 29th of May last. 

The Secretary of State, before entering upon the discussion 
of the points to which the last note from the undersigned re- 
lates, is pleased to say, that the President had supposed that, 
after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
upon this question, there would have been no occasion to re- 
new a correspondence upon it between the two governments. 

The Secretary of State, having, without doubt, carefully read 
the whole of the correspondence which has passed between the 
Department of State and the legation of her Catholic majesty 
upon this subject, since the arrival of the schooner "Amistad" 
at the port of New London, will have therein observed that 
[this legation] has ever and constantly protested against the 
jurisdiction of the courts of the United States ; inasmuch as, 
the case falling under the provisions of the treaty of 1795, it 
should be decided solely and exclusively by the executive, and 
not by any other power. This the Federal government of the 
Union could not but admit, and did in fact admit, when the 
Secretary of State's predecessor said to the undersigned, in his 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 347 

note of the 12th December, 1839: "In connection with one of 
the points in the Chevalier d'Argaiz's last note, the undersigned 
will assure him that, whatever be in the end the disposal of the 
question, it will be in consequence of a decision emanating from 
no other source than the government of the United States ; and 
that if the agency of the judicial authority shall have been em- 
ployed in conducting the investigation of the case, [it] is because 
the judiciary is, by the organic law of the land, a portion, though 
an independent one, of that government." Relying upon this, 
and upon this promise, the undersigned quietly awaited the con- 
clusion of the affair ; as did also the government of her Catho- 
lic majesty, not doubting that, though the courts of the United 
States might go so far as to investigate the facts, the final and 
decisive determination would in any event come from the exec- 
utive power, as had been promised. Under these circumstan- 
ces, the undersigned does not think that the government of the 
Union should be surprised at the continuation of a correspond- 
ence in which, besides the maintenance of a right considered by 
the undersigned as indisputable, compliance with a promise is 
also claimed. If, moreover, the President has not the power to 
destroy or to change in the slightest degree a decision of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, her Catholic majesty's gov- 
ernment can not agree [conformaise — allow, submit to] that the 
consequence of this should be, in the present case, the open vi- 
olation of a treaty, which ought to be respected as the supreme 
law of the United States. 

The Secretary of State says that " the court was guided, in 
its deliberations, as well by the treaty between the two coun- 
tries as by the law of nations and of the United States, and it 
is not for the executive to question that its decree was in exact 
conformity with the obligations imposed upon it by that treaty 
and those laws." The undersigned regrets that there should 
be between the Secretary of State and himself so great a dif- 
ference in the manner of regarding this point ; for, if the court 
of the Union possess the right of interpreting, considering, and 
deciding upon treaties contracted between nation and nation, 
and the executive power can not inquire whether their decrees 
are or are not conformable with justice, it would be as well to 
declare that, in order to give to treaties the force of treaties, 
or, at least, to render them obligatory, they should be conclud- 
ed with the judicial power, or, in better words, that treaties 
should be made, for them to be afterward interpreted as the 
courts might think proper. 

The enlightened Secretary of State will agree with the un- 
dersigned that one of the things which principally constitute 
the independence of a country is the jurisdiction of its courts. 
or, in other words, that no nation, nor its courts, should assume 



348 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

the faculty of pronouncing judicially upon acts committed with- 
in the jurisdiction of another. On this principle, the under- 
signed can not conceive how the Secretary of State could for 
a single moment have supposed that the undersigned would 
have agreed to, and have seen with satisfaction, the decision 
of a court of the United States, pronounced upon acts apper- 
taining to Spanish subjects, committed on board of a Spanish 
vessel, and in the waters of a Spanish territory, within the pur- 
view of a treaty and of the law of nations. 

The Secretary of State is also pleased to observe, " that the 
schooner 'Amistad,' upon her arrival on this coast, was, with 
all her cargo, according to the provisions of the ninth article, 
taken into the custody of the officers of the nearest port, and 
that, in consequence of a claim for salvage, the subject of the 
ownership of the vessel and cargo was brought before the 
courts." The undersigned will not stop to remark upon the 
magnanimity of a demand for salvage preferred by officers of 
a ship of war of the United States. But does the Secretary 
of State believe that this can justify the intervention of the 
courts of the United States in this case, contrary to the opinion 
given by the attorney-general, Mr. Grundy, and after, more- 
over, the officers themselves had renounced their claim to sal- 
vage, as Lieutenant Gedney, the commander of the Washing- 
ton, himself declared to the undersigned ? 

The Secretary of State also says, that "it was found by the 
courts that the negroes were not the lawful property of any 
one." One violation of necessity brought on another, not less 
unjust ; for the judges of the United States, in order to ascer- 
tain whether or not the Africans were the lawful property of 
Spanish subjects, thought proper to examine the papers found 
on board of the vessel, which had been given by the authori- 
ties of her Catholic majesty in the Island of Cuba. This was 
a recognition of the right of search, which, besides its not being 
authorized by any nation, has been combated by writers on 
public law, and most particularly, in the case in question, by 
the distinguished jurist Mr. Grundy, attorney-general of the 
Union at the time when the schooner "Amistad" arrived on the 
Anglo-American coasts. (See his opinion on this case.) 

With all these considerations in view, and after having care- 
fully examined the note of the Secretary of State, the under- 
signed can not comprehend upon what that gentleman founds 
his assertion, that the courts of the United States could prop- 
erly and lawfully take cognizance of this case. 

There is, however, one circumstance which the undersigned 
considers well worthy of remark, as the Secretary of State 
says that court decided that the vessel and her cargo belonged 
to their lawful owners. As the vessel and cargo had been pub- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 349 

licly sold — by whose orders or how, neither the undersigned 
nor the owners knew — nothing seems to be more just and equi- 
table than to indemnify promptly, duly, and fully those whose 
property had been unjustly taken away, in manifest contradic- 
tion to the sense and letter of the ninth article of the treaty of 
1795 ; yet when the undersigned claims the indemnification so 
justly due, the Secretary of State makes no reply on this point, 
limiting himself, as may be seen in the twelfth paragraph of his 
note to the declaration, that " were the government of the Unit- 
ed States conscious of having inflicted injury upon any, whether 
a private individual or a powerful nation, indemnification would 
be readily granted." The undersigned conceives that the fact 
of individuals, subjects of her Catholic majesty, having been ar- 
bitrarily deprived of their vessel and cargo should be sufficient 
to produce the conviction that indemnification is due to them. 

The Secretary of State asks : " What injury has been in- 
flicted on the subjects of Spain, owners of the vessel and cargo, 
by saving both from complete destruction or from entire loss 
to them, and returning both to them when their legal claims 
were ascertained ?" In the first place, the undersigned sees 
with regret that the Secretary of State is under an erroneous 
impression, for her Catholic majesty's subjects have not receiv- 
ed, to this day, either the vessel or her cargo ; and how could 
they have been delivered to them, since they were sold during 
the absence of those subjects, and without their knowledge ? 
The undersigned will, on his side, ask, in what point have the 
stipulations of the eighth article of the treaty of 1795 been ful- 
filled toward her Catholic majesty's subjects, Don Jose Ruiz 
and Don Pedro Montes ? Have they been treated with human- 
ity? Have all favor, protection, and help been extended to 
them 1 Have they been permitted to remove and depart, when 
and whither they pleased, without let or hinderance ? The un- 
just imprisonment which they suffered for several months will 
serve as an answer to these questions. 

The undersigned can not in any way admit the supposition 
advanced by the Secretary of State, that, "even had the ne- 
groes been at any time slaves, they would not have become, by 
their killing and escape from lawful bondage, assassins and pi- 
rates, whose delivery to the government of Spain, not having 
been provided for in any stipulations of the treaty of 17U5, 
would have been a matter of comity only, not to be demanded 
as a right." The treaty of 1795 unquestionably does not pro- 
vide for the delivery of pirates or assassins, but only because 
the contracting parties could never have imagined that a case 
like the present could have occasioned doubts of any kind, and 
because the point was so clear that they did not think it neces- 
sary to take it into consideration. Who can foresee the horri- 



350 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

ble consequences which may result, as well in the islands of 
Cuba and Porto Rico as in the Southern States of the Union, 
should the slaves come to learn — and there will be no want of 
persons to inform them — that, on murdering, killing, and flying 
from lawful captivity whensoever they may be in transporta- 
tion from one point of the islands to another, and coming to the 
United States, the delivery of them, on account of their having 
murdered, killed, or fled, can not be demanded as a right? 
The undersigned leaves to the characteristic penetration of the 
Secretary of State [the task of imagining] the severe incalcula- 
ble evils which may be occasioned by realizing this supposition. 

The undersigned duly acknowledges the favor of the offer 
made by the Secretary of State to the Spanish subjects Ruiz 
and Montes, that the courts of the United States would be open 
for them to present their complaints on account of injuries or 
personal sufferings. To these courts natives as well as foreign- 
ers can indifferently have recourse ; but Messrs. Montes and 
Ruiz are in a particular position, in which they are placed as 
well by the treaty of 1795 as by the law of nations, and, in or- 
der to preserve it, they magnanimously suffered a severe im- 
prisonment for months. As they have, in consequence, placed 
themselves under the protection of her Catholic majesty's le- 
gation, they will through it, as the undersigned hopes, obtain 
a happy result from their complaints. 

In consideration of all that has been here set forth, the un- 
dersigned takes pleasure in believing that the Secretary of 
State will find his demands just and well founded, and will, he 
doubts not, take proper measures for arriving at the happy con- 
summation which he promises to himself. The undersigned, at 
the same time, thinks it his duty to state that he has received 
express orders from his government to protest, in the most sol- 
emn and formal manner, against all that has been done by the 
courts of the United States in the case of the schooner Ami- 
stad, the fulfillment of this order being one of the principal ob- 
jects which the undersigned proposed to accomplish by this 
note. 

The undersigned can not conclude this communication with- 1 
out conveying to the Secretary of State his acknowledgments 
for the expression of his desire to preserve unbroken the old 
and friendly relations which, fortunately and for their mutual 
prosperity, bind Spain to the United States. The undersigned 
and his government cherish the same desires ; and, with this 
understanding, he flatters himself that he will shortly receive a 
proof of the scrupulous exactness with which the government 
of the Union fulfills the treaties and stipulations which unite it 
with other friendly nations. 

The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to repeat 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 351 

to the Secretary of State the assurances of his high esteem and 
distinguished consideration. P. A. d'Argaiz. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State of the United States. 

Mr. Webster to the Chevalier d'Arga'iz. 

Department of State, Washington, June 21, 1842. 

The Secretary of State has to acknowledge the receipt of 
the note of the 24th of September, which M. d'Arga'iz did him 
the honor to address to him. 

Viewing that note as intended mainly for a protest against 
the proceedings of this government in the case of the " Ami- 
stad," the undersigned did not think a reply was desired, or that 
any advantage would ensue from further prolonging the dis- 
cussion. 

Understanding now, from conversation with M. d'Argaiz, 
that a reply is expected, the undersigned proceeds to offer some 
remarks on the subject of M. d'Argaiz's note. 

The undersigned did certainly suppose that the communica- 
tion to M. d'Arga'iz of the decision of the Supreme Court would 
close the correspondence on that subject. The immediate 
predecessor of the undersigned, whose remarks, as quoted by 
M. d'Argaiz, the undersigned well remembers, meant, and could 
have meant nothing more, by those remarks, than that the de- 
cision of the Supreme Court would be the decision of the gov- 
ernment. Mr. Forsyth does not use the word executive in this 
connection. He says, " Government." " Whatever be, in the 
end, the disposal of the question, it will be in consequence of a 
decision emanating from no other source than the government 
of the United States." 

The Supreme Court is a part of that government, as Mr. 
Forsyth remarks ; and its decision, in matters lawfully within 
its jurisdiction, is the final decision of the government of the 
United States upon such matters. 

M. d'Argaiz seems to think that a treaty stipulation can not 
be subjected to the interpretation of the judicial authority, and 
proceeds to remark, that, " if the courts of the Union possess 
the right of interpreting, considering, and deciding upon treaties 
contracted between nation and nation, and the executive power 
can not inquire whether their decrees are or are not conforma- 
ble with justice, it would be as well to declare that, in order to 
give to treaties the force of treaties, or, at least, to render them 
obligatory, they should be concluded with the judicial power, 
or, in better words, that treaties should be made, for them to 
be afterward interpreted as the courts might think proper." 
But the undersigned supposes that nothing is more common, in 
countries where the judiciary is an independent branch of the 
government, than for questions arising under treaties to be 



352 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

submitted to its decision. Indeed, in all regular governments 
questions of private right, arising under treaty stipulations, are 
in their nature judicial questions. With us, a treaty is part of 
the supreme law of the land ; as such it influences and controls 
the decisions of all tribunals ; and many instances might be 
quoted of decisions made in the Supreme Court of the United 
States, arising under their several treaties with Spain herself, 
as well as under treaties between the United States and other 
nations. Similar instances of judicial decisions on points aris- 
ing under treaties may be found in the history of France, En- 
gland, and other nations ; and, indeed, the undersigned would 
take the liberty to remind the Chevalier d'Argaiz that this very 
treaty of 1795 has been made the subject of judicial decision by 
a Spanish tribunal. 

The undersigned would call to the recollection of the Chev- 
alier d'Argaiz the case of Mr. D. Hareng, in which the Spanish 
colonial courts decided according to their sense of the intention 
of the treaty of 1795, and the intendant confirmed their decree, 
which was, that nothing in that treaty exempted Mr. Hareng 
from the payment of certain demands. From this decision this 
government was inclined to dissent, but never questioned the 
right and duty of a Spanish court to consider the intent and ef- 
fect of a treaty. 

M. d'Argaiz states : " The enlightened Secretary of State 
will agree with the undersigned that one of the things which 
principally constitute the independence of a country is the ju- 
risdiction of its courts, or, in other words, that no nation, nor 
its courts, should assume the faculty of pronouncing judicially 
upon acts committed within the jurisdiction of another. On 
this principle, the undersigned can not conceive how the Sec- 
retary of State could for a single moment have supposed that 
the undersigned would have agreed to, and have seen with sat- 
isfaction, the decision of a court of the United States, pronounc- 
ed upon acts appertaining to Spanish subjects, committed on 
board of a Spanish vessel, and in the waters of a Spanish ter- 
ritory, within the purview of a treaty and of the law of nations. 

" The Secretary of State is also pleased to observe, ' that the 
schooner "Amistad," upon her arrival on this coast, was, with 
all her cargo, according to the provisions of the ninth article, 
taken into the custody of the officers of the nearest port, and that, 
in consequence of a claim for salvage, the subject of the own- 
ership of the vessel and cargo was brought before the courts.' 
The undersigned will not stop to remark upon the magnanimi- 
ty of a demand for salvage preferred by officers of a ship of 
war of the United States. But does the Secretary of State be- 
lieve that this can justify the intervention of the courts of the 
United States in this case, contrary to the opinion given by 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 353 

the attorney-general, Mr. Grundy, and after, moreover, the offi- 
cers themselves had renounced their claim to salvage, as Lieu- 
tenant Gedney, the commander of the Washington, himself de- 
clared to the undersigned? The Secretary of State also says, 
* that it was found by the courts that the negroes were not the 
lawful property of any one.' One violation of necessity brought 
on another, not less unjust ; for the judges of the United States, 
in order to ascertain whether or not the Africans were the law- 
ful property of Spanish subjects, thought proper to examine the 
papers found on board of the vessel, which had been given by 
the authorities of her Catholic majesty in the Island of Cuba. 
This was a recognition of the right of search, which, besides 
its not being authorized by any nation, has been combated by 
writers on public law, and most particularly, in the case in 
question, by the distinguished jurist, Mr. Grundy, attorney-gen- 
eral of the Union, at the time when the schooner ' Amistad' ar- 
rived on the Anglo-American coasts. (See his opinion on the 
case.)" 

The undersigned will make one more attempt to state the 
general occurrences of this transaction so plainly that he can 
not be misunderstood, with a hope of convincing M. d'Argai'z 
that nothing has been done by the authorities of the United 
States, or any of them, not in strict accordance with the prin- 
ciples of public law and the practice of nations; nothing which 
can be complained of with justice as an encroachment upon 
Spanish territories, or visiting and searching Spanish vessels. 
The succinct history of the case is the most complete justifica- 
tion which can be made of all that has been done in regard to 
it in the United States. 

Lieutenant Gedney, of the United States brig Washington, 
on the 27th of June, 1839, discovered the Spanish schooner 
"Amistad," then at anchor within half a mile of the shore of 
the United States. The vessel was then in possession of cer- 
tain blacks, who had risen upon and killed the captain. Lieu- 
tenant Gedney took possession of and brought in the vessel to 
the United States, and for this service claimed salvage upon 
the common principles of maritime law. The possession of 
the vessel had become already lost to her owners ; and to save 
her from entire destruction, and to restore her to those owners, 
was esteemed a meritorious service. The Chevalier d'Argai'z 
must certainly understand, that when merchant vessels are met 
with at sea so shattered by storms and tempests, or other dis- 
asters, or so deprived of their crew as to be unable to prose- 
cute their voyages, in all such cases other vessels falling in with 
them and saving them are entitled to reasonable compensation; 
and, to ascertain the amount of this compensation, the vessel is 
to be brought in, subjected to judicial proceedings, and justice 

Z 



354 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

rendered the claimants and salvors, according to well-estab- 
lished rules and principles. 

Spain herself, in the early ages of commerce, was among the 
first to establish the principles, and lead in the administration, of 
this part of the maritime law, and these principles now prevail 
over the whole commercial world ; and the highest judicial au- 
thority in the United States, acting under the influence of the 
same rules which must have controlled the decisions of an En- 
glish tribunal, a French tribunal, or a Spanish tribunal, has de- 
cided that the case was a case for salvage, and has decreed to 
the salvors a just compensation. The undersigned is, therefore, 
quite at a loss to conceive how this transaction can be deemed 
an encroachment upon the jurisdiction of Spain, or an unlawful 
visitation and search of Spanish vessels. At the institution of 
proceedings in the court, claims were interposed on behalf of 
Spanish subjects for the vessel and cargo, which were allowed, 
subject to salvage. 

Claims were also interposed for the negroes found on board, 
which were claimed as slaves, and the property of Spanish 
subjects. On the other hand, the negroes denied that they 
were slaves, and the property of Spanish subjects or any other 
persons. It was impossible for the courts to avoid the decis- 
ions of the questions thus brought before them ; and, in deciding 
them, it was bound to regard the law of nations, the laws of 
Spain, the treaty between Spain and the United States, the 
laws of the United States, and the evidence produced in the 
case. 

Proceeding upon these grounds, after a very patient investi- 
gation, and the hearing of elaborate arguments, the court de- 
cided that the negroes found on board the Amistad, with one 
exception, were not slaves, nor the property of any body, but 
were free persons, and therefore decreed that they should be 
set at liberty. All this appears to the undersigned to be in the 
common course of such affairs. The questions in which Span- 
ish subjects were interested have been heard and tried before 
competent tribunals, and one of them has been decided against 
the Spanish subjects ; but this can give no possible ground of 
complaint on the part of Spain, unless Spain can show that the 
tribunal has acted corruptly, or has decided wrong in a case 
in no degree doubtful. Nations are bound to maintain respect- 
able tribunals, to which the subjects of states at peace may have 
recourse for the redress of injuries and the maintenance of 
their rights. If the character of these tribunals be respectable, 
impartial, and independent, their decisions are to be regarded 
as conclusive. 

The United States have carried the principle of acquiescence, 
in such eases, as far as any nation upon earth, and, in respect 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 355 

to the decisions of Spanish tribunals, quite as frequently, per- 
haps, as in respect to the tribunals of any other nation. 

In almost innumerable cases of reclamations sought by citi- 
zens of the United States against Spain for alleged captures, 
seizures, and other wrongs committed by Spanish subjects, the 
answer has been that the question has been fairly tried before 
an impartial Spanish tribunal, having competent jurisdiction, 
and decided against the claimant; and in the sufficiency of this 
answer the government of the United States has acquiesced. 

If the tribunal be competent, if it be free from unjust influence, 
if it be impartial and independent, and if it has heard the case 
fully and fairly, its judgment is to stand as decisive of the mat- 
ter before it. This principle governs in regard to the decisions 
of courts of common law, courts of equity, and especially courts 
of admiralty, where proceedings so often affect the rights and 
interests of citizens of foreign states and governments. 

M. d'Argai'z complains that the vessel and cargo were sold. 
and that loss thereby happened to the owners. But all this was 
inevitable, and no blame attaches on account of it to the tribu- 
nal. In cases of an allowance for salvage, if the owner be not 
present and ready to pay the amount, the property must nec- 
essarily be sold, that the proceeds be properly apportioned be- 
tween "owner and salvor. This is a daily occurrence in every 
court of admiralty in the world. Sufficient notice of the in- 
tended sale was given in legal form, in order that the claimants 
might be present, or might, if they pleased, prevent it, by pay- 
ing the amount awarded for salvage, and receive their property. 

The Chevalier d'Argai'z complains that Messrs. Montes and 
Ruiz suffered an unjust imprisonment in the United States. 
The undersigned can not but think that such an allegation of 
injury, put forth in behalf of Messrs. Montes and Ruiz, is not a 
little extraordinary. These persons themselves had held in un- 
just and cruel confinement certain negroes who, it appeared on 
trial, were as free as themselves, and these negroes, finding 
themselves within the protection of equal laws, sought redress, 
by a regular appeal to those laws, for the injuries which they 
had suffered. The pursuit of this redress by the injured par- 
ties, it appears, subjected Messrs. Ruiz and Montes to a tempo- 
rary imprisonment. In the judgment of enlightened men, they 
will probably be thought to have been very fortunate in escap- 
ing severer consequences. M. d'Argai'z's note contains a par- 
agraph of the following tenor: 

" The undersigned can not in any way admit the supposition 
advanced by the Secretary of State, that, ' even had the ne- 
groes been at any time slaves, they would not have become, by 
their killing and escape from lawful bondage, assassins and pi- 
rates, whose delivery to the government of Spain, not having 



356 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

been provided for in any stipulations of the treaty of 1795, 
would have been a matter of comity only, not to be demanded 
as a right.' The treaty of 1795, unquestionably, does not pro- 
vide for the delivery of pirates or assassins, but only because 
the contracting parties could never have imagined that a case 
like the present could have occasioned doubts of any kind, and 
because the point was so clear that they did not think it nec- 
essary to take it into consideration. Who can foresee the hor- 
rible consequences which may result, as well in the islands of 
Cuba and Porto Rico as in the Southern States of the Union, 
should the slaves come to learn — and there will be no want of 
persons to inform them — that, on murdering, killing, and flying 
from lawful captivity whensoever they may be in transporta- 
tion from one point of the islands to another, and coming to the 
United States, the delivery of them, on account of their having 
murdered, killed, or fled, can not be demanded as a right ? The 
undersigned leaves to the characteristic penetration of the Sec- 
retary of State [the task of imagining] the severe incalculable 
evils which may be occasioned by realizing this supposition." 

The undersigned must beg leave to differ entirely from M. 
d'Argai'z in regard to the rule of law for delivering up crimin- 
als and fugitives from justice. Although such extradition is 
sometimes made, yet, in the absence of treaty stipulations, it is 
always matter of comity or courtesy. No government is un- 
derstood to be bound by the positive law of nations to deliver 
up criminals, fugitives from justice, who have sought an asylum 
within its limits. The government of the United States has 
had occasion to hold intercourse on this question with England, 
France, Russia, Denmark, and Sweden ; and it understands it 
to be the sentiment of all these governments, as well as the 
judgment of standard writers on public law, that, in the ab- 
sence of provisions by treaty, the extradition of fugitive offend- 
ers is a matter resting in the option and discretion of every 
government. 

The undersigned has thus once more gone over the circum- 
stances of this case, and stated the view which the government 
of the United States has of it. He sincerely and confidently 
hopes that the Chevalier d'Argai'z will perceive that this gov- 
ernment has violated none of its obligations to Spain, or done 
injustice, in any manner whatever, to any Spanish subject. 

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to 
the Chevalier d'Argai'z assurances of his high consideration. 

Daniel Webster. 
The Chevalier cTArgaiz, &c. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 357 



CHINA AND THE SANDWICH ISLANDS. 

Message from the President of the United States, respecting the 
Trade and Commerce of the United States with the Sandwich 
Islands, and of Diplomatic Intercourse with their Government ; 
also, in relation to the new Position of Affairs in China, 
growing out of the late War between Great Britain and China, 
and recommending Provision for a Diplomatic Agent, Decem- 
ber 31, 1S42. 

To the House of Representatives of the United States : 

I communicate herewith to Congress copies of a correspond- 
ence which has recently taken place between certain agents 
of the government of the Hawaiian, or Sandwich Islands, and 
the Secretary of State. 

The condition of those islands has excited a good deal of in- 
terest, which is increasing by every successive proof that their 
inhabitants are making progress in civilization, and becoming 
more and more competent to maintain regular and orderly 
civil government. They lie in the Pacific Ocean, much nearer 
to this Continent than the other, and have become an important 
place for the refitment and provisioning of American and Eu- 
ropean vessels. 

Owing to their locality, and to the course of the winds which 
prevail in this quarter of the world, the Sandwich Islands are 
the stopping-place for almost all vessels passing from continent 
to continent across the Pacific Ocean. They are especially 
resorted to by the great numbers of vessels of the United States 
which are engaged in the whale fishery in those seas. The 
number of vessels of all sorts, and the amount of property own- 
ed by citizens of the United States which are found in those 
islands in the course of a year, are stated, probably with suf- 
ficient accuracy, in the letter of the agents. 

Just emerging from a state of barbarism, the government 
of the islands" is as yet feeble; but its dispositions appear to be 
just and pacific, and it seems anxious to improve the condition 
of its people by the introduction of knowledge, of religious and 
moral institutions, means of education, and the arts of civilized 
life. 

It can not but be in conformity with the interest and the 
wishes of the government and the people of the United States, 
that this community, thus existing in the midst of a vast ex- 
panse of ocean, should be respected, and all its rights strictly 
and conscientious! v regarded. And this must also be the true 



358 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

interest of all other commercial states. Far remote from the 
dominions of European powers, its growth and prosperity as 
an independent state may yet be in a high degree useful to all 
whose trade is extended to those regions, while its nearer ap- 
proach to this Continent, and the intercourse which American 
vessels have with it — such vessels constituting five sixths of all 
which annually visit it — could not but create dissatisfaction on 
the part of the United States at any attempt by another power, 
should such attempt be threatened or feared, to take possession 
of the islands, colonize them, and subvert the native govern- 
ment. Considering, therefore, that the United States possesses 
so very large a share of the intercourse with those islands, it 
is deemed not unfit to make the declaration, that their govern- 
ment seeks nevertheless no peculiar advantages, no exclusive 
control over the Hawaiian government, but is content with its 
independent existence, and anxiously wishes for its security 
and prosperity. Its forbearance in this respect, under the cir- 
cumstances of the very large intercourse of their citizens with 
the islands, would justify this government, should events here- 
after arise to require it, in making a decided remonstrance 
against the adoption of an opposite policy by any other power. 
Under the circumstances, I recommend to Congress to provide 
for a moderate allowance to be made out of the treasury to the 
consul residing there, that, in a government so new and a 
country so remote, American citizens may have respectable au- 
thority to which to apply for redress in case of injury to their 
persons and property, and to whom the government of the 
country may also make known any acts committed by Ameri- 
can citizens, of which it may think it has a right to complain. 

Events of considerable importance have recently transpired 
in China. The military operations carried on against that em- 
pire by the English government have been terminated by a 
treaty, according to the terms of which four important ports, 
hitherto shut against foreign commerce, are to be open to Brit- 
ish merchants, viz. : Amoy, Foo-Choo-Foo, Ningpo, and Ching- 
hai. It can not but be interesting to the mercantile interest 
of the United States, whose intercourse with China at the sin- 
gle port of Canton has already become so considerable, to 
ascertain whether these other ports, now open to British com- 
merce, are to remain shut, nevertheless, against the commerce 
of the United States. The treaty between the Chinese govern- 
ment and the British commissioner provides neither for the ad- 
mission nor the exclusion of the ships of other nations. It 
would seem, therefore, that it remains with every other nation 
having commercial intercourse with China to seek to make 
proper arrangements for itself with the government of that em- 
pire in this respect. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PATERS. 359 

The importations into the United States from China are 
known to be lara;e, having amounted in some years to nine 
millions of dollars. The exports, too, from the United States 
to China constitute an interesting and growing part of the 
commerce of the country. It appears that, in the year 1841, 
in the direct trade between the two countries, the value of the 
exports from the United States amounted to 8715,000 in do- 
mestic produce, and 8485,000 in foreign merchandise. But the 
whole amount of American produce which finally reaches 
China, and is there consumed, is not comprised in these sums, 
which include only the direct trade. Many vessels with Amer- 
ican products on board sail with a primary destination to other 
countries, but ultimately dispose of more or less of their car- 
goes in the port of Canton. 

The peculiarities of the Chinese government and the Chinese 
character are w r ell known. An empire supposed to contain 
300,000,000 of subjects, fertile in various rich products of the 
earth, not without the knowledge of letters and of many arts, 
and with large and expensive accommodations for internal in- 
tercourse and traffic, has for ages sought to exclude the visits 
of strangers and foreigners from its dominions, and has assumed 
for itself a superiority over all other nations. Events appear 
likely to break down and soften this spirit of non-intercourse, 
and to bring China, ere long, into the relations which usually 
subsist between civilized states. She has agreed in the treaty 
with England that correspondence between the agents of the 
two governments shall be on equal terms : a concession which 
it is hardly probable will hereafter be withheld from other na- 
tions. 

It is true, that the cheapness of labor among the Chinese, 
their ingenuity in its application, and the fixed character of 
their habits and pursuits, may discourage the hope of the open- 
ing of any great and sudden demand for the fabrics of other 
countries ; but experience proves that the productions of West- 
ern nations find a market, to some extent, among the Chinese ; 
that that market, so far as respects the productions of the 
United States, although it has considerably varied in successive 
seasons, has, on the whole, more than doubled within the last 
ten years ; and it can hardly be doubted that the opening of 
several new and important ports, connected with parts of the 
empire heretofore seldom visited by Europeans or Americans, 
would exercise a favorable influence upon the demand for such 
productions. 

It is not understood that the immediate establishment oi cor- 
respondent embassies and missions, or the permanent residence 
of diplomatic functionaries, with full powers, of each country, 
at the court of the other, is contemplated between England and 



3G0 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

China ; although, as has been already observed, it has been 
stipulated that intercourse between the two countries shall 
hereafter be on equal terms. An embassador, or envoy extra- 
ordinary and minister plenipotentiary, can only be accredited, 
according to the usages of Western nations, to the head or sov- 
ereign of the state ; and it may be doubtful whether the court 
of Pekin is yet prepared to conform to these usages, so far as 
to receive a minister plenipotentiary to reside near it. 

Being of opinion, however, that the commercial interests of 
the United States connected with China require, at the present 
moment, a degree of attention and vigilance such as there is 
no agent of this government on the spot to bestow, I recom- 
mend to Congress to make appropriation for the compensation 
of a commissioner to reside in China, to exercise a watchful 
care over the concerns of American citizens, and for the pro- 
tection of their persons and property ; empowered to hold in- 
tercourse with the local authorities, and ready, under instruc- 
tions from his government, should such instructions become 
necessary and proper hereafter, to address himself to the high 
functionaries of the empire, or, through them, to the emperor 
himself. 

It will not escape the observation of Congress, that, in order 
to secure the important objects of any such measure, a citizen 
of much intelligence and weight of character should be em- 
ployed on such agency; and that, to secure the services of 
such an individual, a compensation should be made correspond- 
ing with the magnitude and importance of the mission. 

John Tyler. 

Washington, December 30, 1842. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Cushing. 

Department of State, Washington, May 8, 1843. 

Sir, — You have been appointed by the President commis- 
sioner to China, and envoy extraordinary and minister pleni- 
potentiary of the United States to the court of that empire. 
The ordinary general or circular letter of instructions will be 
placed in your hands, and another letter stating the composition 
or organization of the mission, your own allowances, the allow- 
ance of the secretary, and other matters connected with the 
expenditures about to be incurred under the authority of Con- 
gress. 

It now remains for this department to say something of the 
political objects of the mission, and the manner in which it is 
hoped those objects may be accomplished. It is less necessary 
than it might otherwise be to enter into a detailed statement 
of the considerations which have led to the institution of the 
mission, not only as you will be furnished with a copy of the 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 301 

President's communication to Congress recommending pro- 
vision to be made for the measure, but also as your connection 
with Congress has necessarily brought those considerations to 
your notice and contemplation. 

Occurrences happening in China within the last two years 
have resulted in events which are likely to be of much import- 
ance as well to the United States as to the rest of the civilized 
world. Of their still more important consequences to China 
herself it is not necessary here to speak. The hostilities which 
have been carried on between that empire and England have 
resulted, among other consequences, in opening four important 
ports to English commerce, viz. : Amoy, Ning-po, Shang-hai, 
and Fu-chow. 

These ports belong to some of the richest, most productive, 
and most populous provinces of the empire, and are likely to 
become very important marts of commerce. A leading object 
of the mission in which you are now to be engaged is, to se- 
cure the entry of American ships and cargoes into these ports 
on terms as favorable as those which are enjoyed by English 
merchants. It is not necessary to dwell here on the great and 
well-known amount of imports of the productions of China into 
the United States. These imports, especially in the great ar- 
ticle of tea, are not likely to be diminished. Heretofore they 
have been paid for in the precious metals, or, more recently, 
by bills drawn on London. At one time, indeed, American 
paper of certain descriptions was found to be an available re- 
mittance. Latterly, a considerable trade has sprung up in the 
export of certain American manufactures to China. To aug- 
ment these exports, by obtaining the most favorable commercial 
facilities, and cultivating, to the greatest extent practicable, 
friendly commercial intercourse with China in all its accessible 
ports, is matter of moment to the commercial and manufactur- 
ing as well as the agricultural and mining interests of the United 
States. It can not be foreseen how rapidly or how slowly a 
people of such peculiar habits as the Chinese, and apparently so 
tenaciously attached to those habits, may adopt the sentiments, 
ideas, and customs of other nations. But if prejudiced, and 
strongly wedded to their own usages, the Chinese are still un- 
derstood to be ingenious, acute, and inquisitive. Experience 
thus fai, if it does not strongly animate and encourage efforts 
to introduce some of the arts and the products of other coun- 
tries into China, is not, nevertheless, of a character such as 
should entirely repress those efforts. You will be furnished 
with accounts, as accurate as can be obtained, of the history 
and present state of the export trade of the United States to 
China. 

As vour mission has in view only friendly and commercial 



362 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

objects — objects, it is supposed, equally useful to both countries 
— the natural jealousy of the Chinese, and their repulsive feel- 
ing toward foreigners, it is hoped, may be in some degree re- 
moved or mitigated by prudence and address on your part. 
Your constant aim must be, to produce a full conviction on the 
minds of the government and the people that your mission is 
entirely pacific ; that you come with no purposes of hostility 
or annoyance ; that you are a messenger of peace, sent from 
the greatest power in America to the greatest empire in Asia, 
to offer respect and good-will, and to establish the means of 
friendly intercourse. It will be expedient, on all occasions, to 
cultivate the friendly dispositions of the government and peo- 
ple, by manifesting a proper respect for their institutions and 
manners, and avoiding, as far as possible, the giving of offense 
either to their pride or their prejudices. You will use the 
earliest and all succeeding occasions to signify that the govern- 
ment which sends you has no disposition to encourage, and will 
not encourage, any violation of the commercial regulations of 
China by citizens of the United States. You will state in the 
fullest manner the acknowledgment of this government, that 
the commercial regulations of the empire, having become fairly 
and fully known, ought to be respected by all ships and all per- 
sons visiting its ports ; and if citizens of the United States, un- 
der these circumstances, are found violating well-known laws of 
trade, their government will not interfere to protect them from 
the consequences of their own illegal conduct. You will at the 
same time assert and maintain, on all occasions, the equality 
and independence of your own country. The Chinese are apt 
to speak of persons coming into the empire from other nations 
as tribute-bearers to the emperor. This idea has been fos- 
tered, perhaps, by the costly parade of embassies from England. 
All ideas of this kind respecting your mission must, should they 
arise, be immediately met by a declaration, not made ostenta- 
tiously, or in a manner reproachful toward others, that you are 
no tribute-bearer ; that your government pays tribute to none, 
and expects tribute from none ; and that, even as to presents, 
your government neither makes nor accepts presents. You 
will signify to all Chinese authorities, and others, that it is 
deemed to be quite below the dignity of the Emperor of China 
and the President of the United States of America to be con- 
cerning themselves with such unimportant matters as presents 
from one to the other ; that the intercourse between the heads 
of two such governments should be made to embrace only great 
political questions, the tender of mutual regard, and the estab- 
lishment of useful relations. 

It is, of course, desirable that you should be able to reach 
Pekin, and the court and person of* the emperor, if practicable. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 3G3 

You will, accordingly, at all times signify this as being your pur- 
pose and the object of your mission ; and perhaps it may be 
well to advance as near to the capital as shall be found prac- 
ticable, without waiting to announce your arrival in the coun- 
try. The purpose of seeing the emperor in person must be 
persisted in as long as may be becoming and proper. You will 
inform the officers of the government that you have a letter of 
friendship from the President of the United States to the em- 
peror, signed by the President's own hand, which you can not 
deliver except to the emperor himself, or some high officer of 
the court in his presence. You will say, also, that you have a 
commission conferring on you the highest rank among repre- 
sentatives of your government ; and that this, also, can only be 
exhibited to the emperor, or his chief officer. You may expect 
to encounter, of course, if you get to Pekin, the old question 
of the Kotou. In regard to the mode of managing this matter, 
much must be left to your discretion, as circumstances may oc- 
cur. All pains should be taken to avoid the giving of offense, 
or the wounding of the national pride ; but, at the same time, 
you will be careful to do nothing which may seem, even to the 
Chinese themselves, to imply any inferiority on the part of your 
government, or any thing less than perfect independence of all 
nations. You will say that the government of the United States 
is always controlled by a sense of religion and of honor ; that 
nations differ in their religious opinions and observances ; that 
you can not do any thing which the religion of your own coun- 
try or its sentiments of honor forbid ; that you have the most 
profound respect for his majesty the emperor ; that you are 
ready to make to him all manifestations of homage which are 
consistent with your own sense, and that you are sure his maj- 
esty is too just to desire you to violate your own duty ; that you 
should deem yourself quite unworthy to appear before his maj- 
esty, as peace-bearer from a great and powerful nation, if you 
should do any thing against religion or against honor, as under- 
stood by the government and people in the country you come 
from. Taking care thus in no way to allow the government or 
people of China to consider you as tribute-bearer from your 
government, or as acknowledging its inferiority, in any respect, 
to that of China, or any other nation, you will bear in mind, at 
the same time, what is due to your own personal dignity and 
the character which you bear. You will represent to the 
Chinese authorities, nevertheless, that you are directed to pay 
to his majesty the emperor the same marks of respect and 
homage as are paid by your government to his majesty the 
Emperor of Russia, or any other of the great powers of the 
world. 

A letter signed by the President, as above intimated, and 



364 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

addressed to the emperor, will be placed in your hands. As 
has been already stated, you will say that this letter can only 
be delivered to the emperor, or to some one oAthe great officers 
of state in his presence. Nevertheless, if this can not be done, 
and the emperor should still manifest a desire to receive the 
letter, you may consider the propriety of sending it to him, 
upon an assurance that a friendly answer to it shall be sent, 
signed by the hand of the emperor himself. 

It will be no part of your duty to enter into controversies 
which may exist between China and any European state ; nor 
will you, in your communications, fail to abstain altogether 
from any sentiment or any expression which might give to 
other governments just cause of offense. It will be quite 
proper, however, that you should, in a proper manner, always 
keep before the eyes of the Chinese the high character, import- 
ance, and power of the United States. You may speak of 
the extent of their territory, their great commerce spread over 
all seas, their powerful navy every where giving protection to 
that commerce, and the numerous schools and institutions estab- 
lished in them, to teach men knowledge and wisdom. It can 
not be wrong for you to make known, where not known, that 
the United States, once a country subject to England, threw 
off that subjection years ago, asserted their independence, sword 
in hand, established that independence after a seven years' 
war, and now meet England upon equal terms upon the ocean 
and upon the land. The remoteness of the United States from 
China, and still more the fact that they have no colonial pos- 
sessions in her neighborhood, will naturally lead to the indul- 
gence of a less suspicious and more friendly feeling than may 
have been entertained toward England, even before the late 
war between England and China. It can not be doubted that 
the immense power of England in India must be regarded by 
the Chinese government with dissatisfaction, if not with some 
degree of alarm. You will take care to show strongly how 
free the Chinese government may well be from all jealousy 
arising from such causes toward the United States. Finallv, 
you will signify, in deeided terms and a positive manner, that 
the government of the United States would find it impossible 
to remain on terms of friendship and regard with the emperor, 
if greater privileges or commercial facilities should be allowed 
to the subjects of any other government than should be granted 
to citizens of the United States. 

It is hoped and trusted that you will succeed in making a 
treaty such as has been concluded between England and China; 
and if one containing fuller and more regular stipulations could 
be entered into, it would be conducting Chinese intercourse one 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL TAPER3. 3G5 

step further toward the principles which regulate the public 
relations of the European and American states. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Daniel Webster. 
Hon. Caleb Cushing. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Cushing. 

Department of State, Washington, May 8, 1843. 

Sir, — The President having appointed you commissioner to 
China in the place of Mr. Everett, who has declined to accept 
that appointment, this department is now to give you the neces- 
sary instructions for your mission. 

You will receive herewith two commissions : one as com- 
missioner, under which you will be authorized to treat with 
the governors of provinces or cities, or other local authorities 
of China ; and one as envoy extraordinary and minister pleni- 
potentiary, to be presented at Pekin, if you should reach the 
emperor's court. 

You will likewise be furnished with, 

1. A full power, authorizing you to sign any treaty which 
may be concluded between you and any person duly authorized 
for that purpose by the Emperor of China. 

2. A letter of credence to the emperor, with an office copy 
thereof; the original to be communicated or delivered to the 
sovereign in such manner as may be most convenient or agree- 
able to his majesty to receive it. 

3. A special passport for yourself and suite. 

4. A letter of credit on Baring, Brothers, & Co., bankers of 
the United States at London, authorizing them to pay your 
drafts, from time to time, for an amount not exceeding twenty- 
five thousand dollars. 

5. A printed list of the ministers and other diplomatic and 
consular agents of the United States abroad. 

6. Laws of the United States, 9 vols., and pamphlet copies 
of the Acts of the Twenty-sixth and Twenty-seventh Con- 
gresses. 

7. Congressional Debates (Gales and Seaton's), 8vo, 31 vols. 

8. Gales and Seaton's American State Papers, folio, 21 vols. 

9. Waite's State Papers, 12mo, 12 vols. 

10. Diplomatic Correspondence (Sparks's), 12mo, 19 vols. 

11. Diplomatic Code (Elliott's), 8vo, 2 vols. 

12. American Almanac for 1843, 12mo, 1 vol. 

13. Blue Book for 1841, 1 vol. 

14. Commercial Regulations, 8vo, 3 vols. 

15. American Archives (Force's), folio, 3 vols. 

16. Secret Journals of Congress, 4 vols. 

17. Journal of Federal Convention, 1 vol. 



366 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

18. Sixth Census of the United States, 4 vols. 

19. Congressional Documents of the Second Session of the 
Twentv-sixth Congress. 

20. Congressional Documents of the First Session of the 
Twenty-seventh Congress. 

21. Senate Documents of the Second Session of the Twenty- 
seventh Congress. 

22. Printed Documents connected with the " Northeastern 
Boundary" Negotiation. 

All the printed books are for the use of the mission; and. at 
the termination of your service, are to pass to your successor, 
or be left with the archives in the hands of the charge d'affaires, 
in case one should be named, or of such other person as may be 
designated by this department to take charge of them. 

The act of Congress places at the disposition of the President 
the sum of forty thousand dollars, as an appropriation for the 
special expenses of this mission. But this does not include 
such payments out of the general fund for the contingent ex- 
penses of all the missions abroad as are usually made in the 
case of other missions. The President directs that you be al- 
lowed an outfit of nine thousand dollars, and a salary of nine 
thousand dollars. In missions to Europe, the government al- 
lows for the expenses of the minister's return a sum equal to 
one quarter's salary. Considering the distance from the United 
Stales at which diplomatic services are performed in Asia, it 
has been thought reasonable to allow in missions in that quar- 
ter of the world the minister's expenses in returning at the rate 
of half a year's salary. This has been done in previous cases. 
The return allowance is usually made out of the fund for the 
contingent expenses of the missions abroad ; and, in case no 
sufficient surplus should remain of the fund specially appro- 
priated by Congress after the necessary expenditures in China, 
you are authorized to draw on this department for your return 
allowance, as above stated. The secretary of the mission, Mr. 
Fletcher Webster, already appointed, will be allowed a salary 
at the rate of four thousand five hundred dollars a year. An 
advance has been made to him, partly toward his own com- 
pensation, and partly to enable him to make some necessary 
preparations for the objects of the mission, as you will see by 
his instructions, a copy of which you will herewith receive. 
The necessary traveling expenses of yourself and suite from 
place to place while in China, when you can not be conven- 
iently conveyed by the squadron, will be allowed. Your salary 
will commence from the date of your commission, if you pro- 
ceed on your mission within ninety days from that time. It is 
difficult to give you any rule respecting contingencies in a 
service so new, and in a country so remote. It may be neces- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 3G7 

sary, or, at least, highly useful, that a draughtsman should ac- 
company you, and also some young gentleman in the character 
of physician. It is desired that you make such inquiries as 
may show whether the services of such persons can be obtain- 
ed at small expense. 

A number of young gentlemen have applied to be unpaid at- 
taches to the mission. It will add dignity and importance to 
the occasion, if your suite could be made respectable in num- 
ber, by accepting such offers of attendance without expense to 
the government. 

Of course, you will need the service of one or more inter- 
preters. These you may engage either in Europe or in China, 
or wherever, in your own judgment, you can find persons most 
competent. The squadron destined for service in the Asiatic 
seas, and which, it is understood, will carry you out to China, 
will consist of the frigate Brandywine, sloop of war St. Louis, 
and the steam-frigate Missouri. These vessels will be ready 
to proceed immediately from Norfolk, and will have instruc- 
tions to take up the mission at Bombay. 

The Secretary of the Navy will give the proper directions for 
the accommodation on board the vessels of such gentlemen at- 
tached to the mission as may be ready to go with the squadron. 

The Navy Department will also cause proper instructions to 
be given to Commodore Parker, commanding the squadron, for 
carrying into effect the objects of government in this important 
mission. 

In another paper of this date you will receive further instruc- 
tions respecting the great political objects of the mission, and 
the means supposed to be most likely to accomplish them. 
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Daniel Webster. 

Caleb Cushing, Esq., appointed Commissioner of the United States to China. 

The President's Letter to the Emperor. 

I, John Tyler, President of the United States of America — 
which states are : Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, 
South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, 
Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, and 
Michigan — send you this letter of peace and friendship, signed 
by my own hand. 

I hope your health is good. China is a great empire, ex- 
tending over a great part of the world. The Chinese are 
numerous. You have millions and millions of subjects. The 
twenty-six United States are as large as China, though our 
people are not so numerous. The rising sun looks upon the 



368 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

great mountains and great rivers of China. When he sets, he 
looks upon rivers and mountains equally large in the United 
States. Our territories extend from one great ocean to the 
other ; and on the west we are divided from your dominions 
only by the sea. Leaving the mouth of one of our great rivers, 
and going constantly toward the setting sun, we sail to Japan 
and to the Yellow Sea. 

Now my words are, that the governments of two such great 
countries should be at peace. It is proper, and according to 
the will of Heaven, that they should respect each other, and 
act wisely. I, therefore, send to your court Caleb Cushing, one 
of the wise and learned men of this country. On his first ar- 
rival in China, he will inquire for your health. He has then 
strict orders to go to your great city of Pekin, and there to de- 
liver this letter. He will have with him secretaries and inter- 
preters. 

The Chinese love to trade with our people, and to sell them 
tea and silk, for which our people pay silver, and sometimes 
other articles. But if the Chinese and the Americans will 
trade, there should be rules, so that they shall not break your 
laws nor our laws. Our minister, Caleb Cushing, is authorized 
to make a treaty to regulate trade. Let it be just. Let there 
be no unfair advantage on either side. Let the people trade 
not only at Canton, but also at Amoy, Ning-po, Shang-hai, Fu- 
chow, and all such other places as may offer profitable ex- 
changes both to China and the United States, provided they 
do not break your laws nor our laws. We shall not take the 
part of evil-doers. We shall not uphold them that break your 
laws. Therefore, we doubt not that you will be pleased that 
our messenger of peace, with this letter in his hand, shall come 
to Pekin, and there deliver it ; and that your great officers will, 
by your order, make a treaty with him to regulate affairs of 
trade, so that nothing may happen to disturb the peace between 
China and America. Let the treaty be signed by your own 
imperial hand. It shall be signed by mine, by the authority of 
our great council, the Senate. 

And so may your health be good, and may peace reign. 

Written at Washington, this twelfth day of July, in the year 
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-three. 

Your good friend, John Tyler. 

By the President : 

A. P. Upshur, Secretary of State. 

This Letter is dated July 12, and countersigned by Mr. Up- 
shur, Mr. Webster having then left the department. But it was 
written by Mr. Webster, and the original is now on file, in the 
Department of State, in his hand-writing. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 369 

The President's Letter to the Emperor. 

Great and Good Friend, — I have made choice of Caleb 
Cushing, one of our distinguished citizens, to reside near your 
majesty in the quality of envoy extraordinary and minister 
plenipotentiary of the United States of America. He is well 
informed of the relative interests of the two countries, and our 
sincere desire to cultivate friendship and good correspondence 
between us ; and, from a knowledge of his fidelity and good 
conduct, I have entire confidence that he will render himself 
acceptable to your majesty, by his constant endeavors to pre- 
serve and advance the interests and happiness of both nations. 
I therefore request your majesty to receive him favorably, and 
to give full credence to whatever he shall say on the part of 
the United States, and most of all when he shall assure you of 
their friendship and wishes for your prosperity. And I pray 
God to have you in His safe and holy keeping. 

Written at the city of Washington, the twelfth day of July, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty- 
three. ' Your good friend, John Tyler. 
By the President : 

A. P. Upshur, Secretary of State. 

Messrs. Richards and Haalilio to the Secretary of State. 

Washington, December 14, 1842. 

Sir, — The undersigned having been duly commissioned by 
his majesty, Kamehameha III., king of all the Hawaiian Islands, 
to represent his government, and promote its interests in the 
United States, wish to call the attention of your government to 
the existing relations between the two countries. 

In the year 1826 articles of agreement, in the form of a treaty, 
were entered into between his majesty's government and 
Thomas Ap Catesby Jones, commanding the United States 
sloop-of-war Peacock. His majesty has never received any 
notice of that treaty's being ratified, nor intimation that it was 
approved by the government of the United States. His majesty 
has, nevertheless, during the last sixteen years governed him- 
self by the regulations of that treaty, in all his intercourse with 
citizens of the United States. 

Subsequently to the above, similar forms of agreement have 
been entered into between his majesty and officers command- 
ing vessels of war of different nations of Europe ; but, so far 
as°is known to the undersigned, those agreements have never 
received the sanction of their several governments. 

These facts, viewed in connection with their attendant cir- 
cumstances, have led his majesty to feel considerable embar- 
rassment in managing his foreign relations, and has awakened 

A a 



370 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

the very strong desire that his kingdom should be formally 
acknowledged by the civilized nations of the world as a sover- 
eign and independent state. 

His majesty considers that this acknowledgment has already 
been tacitly but virtually made, both in the United States and 
Europe, by the appointment of consuls and commercial agents 
to reside in his dominions, and by the formal manner in which 
the commanders of national vessels have transacted business 
with him, many of whom have professedly acted under the ex- 
press instructions of their several governments. But he is 
nevertheless of opinion that the time has now arrived when 
both the interest and the honor of his kingdom demand a more 
formal acknowledgment than has hitherto been made by any 
foreign government. It is his majesty's request that the gov- 
ernment of the United States will take into consideration the 
nature, the extent, and the rapidity of those changes which 
have taken place in his dominions during the last few years ; 
changes which he has the happiness to believe are honorable, 
both to his government and to the people over whom it rules. 

Twenty-three years ago the nation had no written language, 
and no character in which to write it. The language had 
never been systematized nor reduced to any kind of form. The 
people had no acquaintance with Christianity, nor with the val- 
uable institutions or usages of civilized life. The nation had 
no fixed form or regulations of government, except as they 
were dictated by those who were in authority, or might by any 
means acquire power. The right of property was not ac- 
knowledged, and was therefore but partially enjoyed ; there 
were no courts of justice, and the will of the chieftains was ab- 
solute. The property of foreigners had no protection, except 
in the kind disposition of individuals. But, under the fostering 
influence, patronage, and care of his majesty, and that of his 
predecessors, the language has been reduced to visible and 
systematized form, and is now written by a large and respect- 
able proportion of the people. Schools have been established 
throughout his dominions, and are supported principally by the 
government ; and there are but few, among the younger peo- 
ple, who are unable to read. They have now, in their own 
language, a library embracing a considerable variety of books, 
on a variety of subjects, including the Holy Scriptures, works 
on natural history, civil history, church history, geography, 
political economy, mathematics, and statute law ; besides a 
number of elementary books. A regular monarchical govern- 
ment has been organized, of a limited and representative char- 
acter, a translation of the Constitution of which we herewith 
transmit. A code of laws, both civil and criminal, has been 
enacted and published. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 371 

The Legislature holds an annual meeting for the purpose of 
adding to and amending this code. Courts of justice have been 
established, and regular trials by jury required in all important 
cases. Foreigners of different nations have testified their con- 
fidence in these courts, by bringing suits in cases where many 
thousands of dollars worth of property was involved, and that, 
too, in cases when, with but very short delay, they could have 
been carried before the courts of other countries. 

It has, moreover, been the uniform practice of consuls and 
commercial agents, resident in his majesty's dominions, and 
also of all commanders of national vessels visiting those domin- 
ions, to demand all that protection, both of person and prop- 
erty, which is demanded of sovereign and independent states ; 
and this his majesty believes has been duly and efficiently ex- 
tended. While, therefore, all is demanded of his government, 
and all is rendered by it, which is demanded of or rendered by 
the governments of sovereign and independent states, he feels 
that he has a right to expect his state to be acknowledged as 
such, and thus be formally received into the general compact 
of sovereign nations. In the request which his majesty hereby 
makes to the government of the United States, he has, of course, 
for his direct object the promotion of the interest of his own 
kingdom ; but he is also very fully convinced that the important 
interests of all the great commercial nations will also be mate- 
rially subserved by his dominions remaining, as they have hith- 
erto been, independent. 

Their position is such that they constitute the great center 
of the whale fishery for most of the world. They are on the 
principal line of communication between the western continent 
of America and the eastern continent of Asia ; and such are the 
prevailing winds on that ocean, that all vessels requiring re- 
pairs or "supplies, either of provisions or of water, naturally 
touch at those islands, whether the vessels sail from Columbia 
River on the north, or from the far-distant ports of Mexico, 
Central America, or Peru upon the south ; and it should be 
further added, that there is no other place in all that part of the 
Pacific Ocean where repairs of vessels can be made to so good 
an advantage, or supplies be obtained in such abundance, and 
on so favorable terms. 

His majesty wishes, also, to remind the government of the 
United States, that the amount of property belonging to their 
citizens, which is either landed at, or enters the various harbors 
and roadsteads of his dominions, and is consequently more or 
less dependent on the protection of his government, can not be 
less than from five to seven millions of dollars annually. This 
property lies in some ninety or a hundred whaling ships and 
their cargoes, and in some twelve or fifteen merchant vessels. 



372 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

besides, also, a considerable amount of other property belonging 
to American citizens on shore. At some seasons there have 
been not less than three or four millions of dollars worth of 
American property, and some fourteen hundred American cit- 
izens, at the same time at the various parts of the island, requir- 
ing consequently, in some degree, the protection of his majesty; 
and he has the happiness of believing that efficient and satis- 
factory aid has always been extended to those who have re- 
quired it. In evidence corroborative of many of the facts 
herein stated, the undersigned do not hesitate to refer to docu- 
mentary evidence, which they believe must be among the 
papers in your Department of State, recently furnished by 
masters of national vessels, but more especially by the United 
States commercial agent residing at Honolulu. 

His majesty is also desirous that there should be a definite 
arrangement for the settlement of any future difficulties which 
may unhappily arise, and which, between sovereign and inde- 
pendent nations, would ordinarily be the subject of diplomatic 
correspondence. To carry into effect these desirable objects, 
the undersigned are authorized by his majesty, Kamehameha 
III., to enter into negotiation with the authorities of the United 
States, by convention, treaty, or otherwise, whenever the latter 
shall acknowledge the sovereignty of the former ; and, as evi- 
dence that the undersigned are thus authorized, they are pre- 
pared to present official papers from his majesty, whenever the 
way is open for them to be received. 

The undersigned will further state, that they are directed to 
proceed from the United States to Europe, for the purpose of 
obtaining from some of the principal governments there the 
same acknowledgments which it is the object of this letter to 
obtain from the government of the United States. 

Accept, sir, the assurances of the high consideration with 
which the undersigned have the honor to be your obedient 
servants, Timoteo Haalilio, 

William Richards. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 

The Secretary of State to the Agents of the Sandwich Islands. 

Department of State, Washington, December 19, 1842. 

Gentlemen, — I have received the letter which you did me 
the honor to address to me, under date of the 14th instant, 
stating that you had been commissioned to represent, in the 
United States, the government of the Hawaiian Islands, invit- 
ing the attention of this government to the relations between 
the two countries, and intimating a desire for a recognition of 
the Hawaiian government by that of the United States. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 373 

Your communication has been laid before the President, and 
by him considered. 

The advantages of your country to navigators in the Pa- 
cific, and in particular to the numerous vessels and vast ton- 
nage of the United States frequenting that sea, are fully esti- 
mated ; and just acknowledgments are due to the government 
and inhabitants of the islands for their numerous acts of hospi- 
tality to the citizens of the United States. 

The United States have regarded the existing authorities in 
the Sandwich Islands as a government suited to the condition 
of the people, and resting on their own choice ; and the Presi- 
dent is of opinion that the interests of all commercial nations 
require that that government should not be interfered with by 
foreign powers. Of the vessels which visit the islands, it is 
known that a great majority belongs to the United States. The 
United States, therefore, are more interested in the fate of the 
islands, and of their government, than any other nation can be ; 
and this consideration induces the President to be quite willing 
to declare, as the sense of the government of the United States, 
that the government of the Sandwich Islands ought to be re- 
spected ; that no power ought either to take possession of the 
islands as a conquest, or for the purpose of colonization ; and 
that no power ought to seek for any undue control over the 
existing government, or any exclusive privileges or preferences 
with it in matters of commerce. 

Entertaining these sentiments, the President does not see any 
present necessity for the negotiation of a formal treaty, or the 
appointment or reception of diplomatic characters. A consul, 
or agent, from this government will continue to reside in the 
islands. He will receive particular instructions to pay just and 
careful attention to any claims or complaints which may be 
brought against the government or people of the islands by cit- 
izens of the United States, and he will also be instructed to re- 
ceive any complaint which may be made by that government, 
for acts of individuals (citizens of the United States), on account 
of which the interference of this government may be requested, 
and to transmit such complaint to this department. 

It is not improbable that this correspondence may be made 
the subject of a communication to Congress ; and it will be 
officially made known to the governments of the principal com- 
mercial powers of Europe. 

I have the honor to be, gentlemen, your obedient servant, 

Daniel Webster. 

Messrs. Timoteo Haalilio and William Richards, Washington. 



374 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 



CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATY BETWEEN THE 
UNITED STATES AND PORTUGAL, RESPECTING 
DUTIES AT THE CUSTOM HOUSE. 

Mr. Figaniere e Morao to Mr. Webster. — [copy.} 

Philadelphia, November 18, 1841. 

The undersigned, a member of her majesty's council, and 
minister resident of Portugal in the United States of America, 
by direction of his government, has the honor to address him- 
self to the Honorable Daniel Webster, Secretary of State of 
the United States, in order to lay before him, for the consider- 
ation of the American government, and its consequent action 
at the next session of the legislative body of the Union, the fol- 
lowing observations respecting the bill concerning duties and 
drawbacks, reported to the House of Representatives at the' 
late session of Congress. 

The attention of her majesty's government was called to the 
bill in question in consequence of its purporting to lay aside 
the principle heretofore and for a long period followed in the 
United States, of imposing specific duties on wines and spirit- 
uous liquors, on their introduction into this country, and sub- 
stituting an ad valorem duty, which could not be viewed with 
indifference by the government of Portugal, inasmuch as the 
proposed change, which has since been effected by the subse- 
quent passage of said bill in both Houses, and its approval by 
the President on the 11th of September last, is certainly high- 
ly detrimental to the consumption of Portuguese wines in this 
country, and consequently prejudicial to the commercial inter- 
course of the two nations, which has so shortly ago, and with 
reciprocal satisfaction, been fixed upon a liberal basis in the 
treaty signed at Lisbon on the 20th of August, 1840. 

When that treaty was under negotiation, and at its termina- 
tion, the duties on wines (the principal export of Portugal) 
were then, and continued to be, specifically levied in the United 
States ; nor was it at that time intended, to the knowledge of 
the queen's government, that the system then followed would 
so soon and unexpectedly be changed, to the great injury of 
the Portuguese staple. Moreover, it is argued, the operation 
of the act in question infringes, if not the letter, the spirit of 
the said treaty, which violation was surely never contemplated 
by either the legislative or executive branch of the United 
States government. Nevertheless, the fact appears evident, 
when it is taken into consideration that the wines of Portugal, 
from their nature, and peculiar, unavoidable circumstances, 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL TATEHS. 375 

can only reach this country at a comparatively higher cost 
than the wines of other countries, and of course be subjected 
to a higher duty, according to the act of Congress, than the 
like wines of those other countries, and consequently contrary 
to the provision of the 3d article of the treaty of 1840, which 
would not be the case if the duty were specific, as before the 
passage of the act. 

In order to show the different effects of the two modes of 
imposing duties on wines, the undersigned begs to call Mr. 
Webster's attention to the following illustration of them. A 
pipe of wine from the Mediterranean, Spain, or any other 
country, reaches a port in the United States at a cost (let it be 
supposed) of 30 cents the gallon, and a like pipe of wine from 
Portugal costing say 38 cents the gallon. If the duty be spe- 
cific (for instance, 15 cents), they will both be subjected to the 
same, and neither pay a higher or other duty than the other; 
for fifteen cents per gallon, and no more, would be levied upon 
both pipes. Not so, however, according to the act of the 11th 
of September last, which imposes twenty per cent, ad valorem. 
The Spanish or other wine will pay only six cents per gallon, 
while from the like wine of Portugal* will be exacted 7 T %\ cents 
per gallon, which, de facto, operates as a discriminating duty 
against the Portuguese wines, contrary to the stipulations of 
the treaty between the two countries. 

The undersigned will not, on this occasion, multiply argu- 
ments to prove the injurious effect the act referred to will 
have upon the wines of his country, and upon its commerce 
generally with the United States, should the present mode of 
levying the duties upon wines and spirituous liquors be con- 
tinued. He flatters himself that the plain statement now of- 
fered, together with the verbal observations he very lately had 
the honor to submit to Mr. Webster upon the same subject, 
will convince him of the fitness of the alteration proposed, in 
order that the treaty referred to be not virtually rendered 
void, but available, as the two governments intend, for the 
benefit both of Portugal and the United States. 

The minister of Portugal avails himself of this opportunity 
to reiterate to the honorable Secretary of State the assurance 
of his distinguished consideration and esteem. 

De Figaniere e Morao. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State of the United Slates. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Figaniere e Morao. 

Department of State, Washington, February 9, 1842. 

The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, 
has the honor to acknowledge Mr. De Figaniere e Morao's 
note of the 18th of November, and has given to it the consid- 



376 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

eration due to its importance, and to the friendly relations 
happily subsisting between the two governments. 

The undersigned regrets that the government of Portugal 
should suppose that it has reason to complain, in any manner, 
of a law of the United States as being prejudicial to Portugal, 
or at variance with the amity and good-will subsisting between 
the two countries, and especially as inconsistent with the treaty 
obligations of the United States. 

The law complained of was enacted on the 11th day of Sep- 
tember, 1841 ; and its main provision was, to lay a duty of 20 
per cent, ad valorem on all such articles as were at that time 
free, or on which the duty was less than that rate, with cer- 
tain exceptions. The wines of Portugal not being within the 
exceptions, and being subject at that time only to a specific 
duty, may fall under an increased charge or duty by the op- 
eration of this law. 

The third article of the treaty subsisting between the United 
States and Portugal is in these words : 

" No higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importa- 
tion into the kingdom and possessions of Portugal of any arti- 
cle, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States 
of America ; and no higher or other duties shall be imposed 
on the importation into the United States of America of any 
article, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the kingdom 
and possessions of Portugal, than such as are or shall be pay- 
able on the like article, being the growth, produce, or manu- 
facture of any other foreign country. 

" Nor shall any prohibition be imposed on the importation 
or exportation of any article, the growth, produce, or manu- 
facture of the United States of America, or of the kingdom 
and possessions of Portugal, to or from the ports of the said 
kingdom and possessions of Portugal, or of the said States, 
which shall not equally extend to all other foreign nations. 

"Nor shall any higher or other duties or charges be im- 
posed, in either of the two countries, on the exportation of any 
articles to the United States of America or to the kingdom of 
Portugal, respectively, than such as are payable on the ex- 
portation of the like articles to any other foreign country. 

" Provided, however, that nothing contained in this "article 
shall be understood or intended to interfere with the stipulation 
entered into by the United States of America, for a special 
equivalent, in regard to French wines, in the convention made 
by the said States and France on the fourth day of July, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty- 
one, which stipulation will expire and cease to have effect in 
the month of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
eight hundred and forty-two.*' 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 377 

Mr. De Figaniere e Morao thinks that the provision of this ar- 
ticle is intertered with by the above-mentioned act of Congress. 
He illustrates his own view of the subject by putting a case 
in the following form : 

" A pipe of wine from the Mediterranean, or Spain, or any 
other country, reaches a port in the United States at a cost 
(let it be supposed) of 30 cents the gallon, and a like pipe of 
wine from Portugal costing 38 cents per gallon. If the duty 
be specific, say 15 cents, they will both be subject to the same, 
and neither pay a higher or other duty than the other ; for fif- 
teen cents per gallon, and no more, would be levied on both 
pipes. Not so, however, according to the act of the 11th of 
September last, which imposes 20 per cent, ad valorem. The 
Spanish or other wine will pay only six cents per gallon, while 
from the like wine of Portugal will be exacted 7 T W cents per 
gallon, which, de facto, operates as a discriminating duty against 
the Portuguese wine, contrary to the stipulations of the treaty 
between the two countries." 

Before proceeding to consider the argument and illustration 
thus advanced, the undersigned avails himself of the opportu- 
nity of stating to Mr. De Figaniere e Morao, that the language 
in the third article of the treaty between the United States 
and his government is of the same import with that used in 
most other treaties of the United States with foreign powers, 
and identical with that employed in some of them ; and that no 
complaint has ever been made to this government by the gov- 
ernments with whom such treaties have existed of any injury, 
injustice, or want of strict compliance with treaty stipulations 
on any such ground as has been now taken by the Portuguese 
government. It will be at once obvious, therefore, to Mr. De 
Figaniere e Morao that the government of the United States 
must take such a view of the question as it can maintain not 
only in regard to Portugal, but many other powers also. 

The interdict of the treaty is, 

" No higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importa- 
tion into the United States of America, of any article, the 
growth, produce, or manufacture of the kingdom and posses- 
sions of Portugal, than such as are or shall be payable on the 
like article, being the growth, produce, or manufacture of any 
other foreign country." 

The article on which the duty complained of is laid is wine ; 
and the duty laid on Portuguese wine is exactly the same, in 
terms, as that laid on the like article (except as excepted in the 
law) coming from other countries. In other words, all wines 
fall under the same duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem. In terms, 
therefore, the law is clearly within the treaty. 

But Mr. De Figaniere e Morao thinks it not in conformity 



378 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

with the spirit and intent of the treaty, because, under its op- 
eration, a gallon of wine in Portugal may cost more than a 
gallon of wine in Spain, and, therefore, 20 per cent, on the cost 
of the gallon of Portuguese wine will be more than 20 per cent, 
on that of the Spanish wine ; and, consequently, a gallon of 
Portuguese wine will pay a higher duty than a gallon of Span- 
ish wine. That this may be the result of the operation of the 
law can not be denied ; and this makes it necessary to in- 
quire, what is the true interpretation of this third article of the 
treaty ? 

There may sometimes be difficulty, without doubt, in decid- 
ing on the just extent of such a provision, and in applying it, 
in the legislation of states bound to regard it ; because, in 
general, articles identically the same, or in the language of the 
treaty alike, are seldom imported from different countries. 
Yet the provision itself is to be observed, and is to receive a 
reasonable and just construction. This is the leading rule of 
interpretation in regard to all treaties and other important 
compacts. Now it is evident, that if Mr. De Figaniere e Mo- 
rao's idea be correct, the government of the United States 
could impose no ad valorem duty whatever, because, as articles 
bearing the same general name, and imported from different 
countries, would, of course, be of different degrees of value 
and cost, the country producing those of highest value would 
always have cause of complaint, if subjected to an ad valorem 
duty. The result would be, that the government of the United 
States could not exercise its powers at all, in one of the most 
ordinary modes of taxation. As this consequence would be 
unreasonable, and evidently not within the contemplation of 
the parties, the reasoning which would conduct us to it must 
be rejected. 

We are to consider, then, what is the just meaning of the 
terms " other or higher duties," and to inquire by what stand- 
ard it is to be known and ascertained whether duties " other 
and higher" are laid in a given case. Now, to accomplish 
this, resort must be had to some measure of comparison, simple 
or mixed ; some rule by which the question is to be decided. 
What is that rule ? What is the standard of comparison ? Is 
some one single consideration to fix that standard, or may ref- 
erence be had to various considerations ? Mr. De Figaniere 
e Morao's idea is, that the only element of calculation, the only 
datum to be taken into view, is the quantity of the article ; 
that is to say, he is of opinion that if one gallon pays more duty 
than another gallon, the duty is, for that reason alone, higher, in 
the sense of the treaty. But the undersigned thinks, with all 
respect, that this may well be questioned ; he thinks cost and 
value may be regarded as forming parts of the basis of calcu- 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 379 

lation and comparison, as well as quantity. It is as reasonable, 
as seems to him, to understand the treaty as saying that mer- 
chandise from Portugal shall pay no higher duties than similar 
merchandise from other countries, according to its value, as it 
is to understand it as saying that it shall pay no higher duties 
in proportion to its quantity. Cost and value are as reasona- 
ble a basis as mere measure, weight, or quantity, in deciding 
on the comparison of duties. Indeed, it appears to the un- 
dersigned that ad valorem duties are likely to be the most un- 
exceptionable of all forms of imposts, so far as stipulations 
in treaties, like that now under consideration, are concern- 
ed. When duties are made specific, they are laid on differ- 
ent classes of the same general article at different rates, ac- 
cording to their respective degrees of cost or value. Cheap 
wines are not taxed so high as dearer wines ; nor can it be 
considered as any purpose of the treaty to abolish such dis- 
tinctions ; so that cost and value ordinarily constitute either 
the whole or part of the ground upon which rates of duties 
are fixed. In the case stated by Mr. De Figaniere e Morao, 
the Portuguese wine is assumed as the more costly article. 
But we may well suppose an opposite case, and a case of spe- 
cific duties of exactly the same nominal amount, and yet a 
case in which, as it appears to the undersigned, Portugal might 
complain with far greater appearance of reason than she now 
complains of the law of September. There are wines of Port- 
ugal, of large consumption, which cost much less than certain 
wines of France. Let us suppose that a wine of Lisbon cost 
50 cents a gallon, and a wine of Bordeaux one dollar, and that 
each was taxed equally one dollar a gallon in the ports of the 
United States. Here would be an apparent equality, just such 
as Mr. De Figaniere e Morao now thinks ought to exist. But 
would there be real equality ? Might not the Portuguese pro- 
ducer say that he did not enjoy, substantially, the same ad- 
vantage as his French competitor, inasmuch as his capital and 
labor, producing an article in greater quantity, but of lower 
price, were really subjected to a burden twice as great as that 
which fell on the labor and capital of the French producer ? 
Might he not say, suffer my product, according to its cost and 
value, to be received into the country upon the same terms, 
and not other or higher, as the products of other countries ? 
The stipulation contained in the third article of the treaty be- 
tween the United States and Portugal, and in other treaties to 
which the United States are parties, is just and liberal, and 
ought to be observed to the fullest practicable extent ; but per- 
haps it may be found that it is necessarily circumscribed within 
certain limits, and subjected to qualifications. And this results 
from the fact that, in a commercial sense, and according to the 



380 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

common understanding of men, the generic word " article" is 
subdivisible, and its subdivisions are as well known, and are 
regarded in as independent and substantive a sense as the 
generic term itself. 

Wine is an article of commerce ; but the wine of Oporto, 
wine of Bordeaux, wine of Madeira, wine of Sicily, are sepa- 
rate articles ; so regarded in transactions of commerce, so re- 
garded in the duty laws of various governments, and especially 
in those of the United States. 

It would, therefore, not be considered as any infraction of 
the treaty with Portugal, if Oporto wines were subjected to 
one duty and Sicily wines to another, since they are, in 
commercial understanding, different articles. And it may be 
added, that difference in cost or value may, in many cases, very 
materially contribute to settle the question of identity or differ- 
ence between two articles ; that is to say, in deciding whether 
two articles are the same, or alike, as the phrase of the treaty 
is, reference to the cost of each may be very pertinent and 
important. For example, the teas of China have heretofore 
been subject to different rates of duties in the United States as 
separate articles, under separate and specific denominations, 
as Bohea, Congo, Hyson, &c. Now in a disputed case, whether 
a particular article of that general kind belonged to one or the 
other of these classes, would be an inquiry, in the prosecution 
of which one important element of proof and ground of decis- 
ion would naturally be the cost of the article, the more especial- 
ly if the classes bore a considerable resemblance to each other, 
as is the case with some of them. So, if articles bearing the 
same general name come from different countries, whether they 
ought to be regarded as the same article, is a question for the 
solution of which one may look not only to the name, but to 
their cost and value. And this consideration appears to the 
undersigned to show, he presumes to say, almost conclusively, 
that if the duty in a given case be ad valorem, it is, of all forms 
of laying duties, that which is most strictly in accordance with 
the provisions of treaties, such as that between the United 
States and Portugal. 

The article of the treaty under consideration was designed 
as a stipulation that no unfriendly legislation should be resort- 
ed to by one party against the other, nor any preference given 
to the products of other countries, with intent to injure or prej- 
udice either party to the treaty. The treaty enjoins the spirit 
and practice of fair and equal legislation ; but neither party 
supposed itself precluded by its stipulations from the ordinary 
modes of exercising its own power of making law* for raising 
revenue in its accustomed modes ; and if it happen, in any 
case, that, from the operation of laws thus laid with fair intent 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 381 

and for necessary purposes, inconveniences result to either 
party, that result must be considered as not intended, but as 
arising from the nature of the case itself, and therefore as un- 
avoidable. 

These are the general views which have presented them- 
selves to the undersigned in answer to Mr. De Figaniere e 
Morao's note, and he trusts that the government of Portugal 
will consider them as satisfactory. Portugal is one of the 
countries with which the United States, in taking their place 
in the circle of nations, had early friendly commercial and dip- 
lomatic intercourse. Happily, nothing has occurred perma- 
nently to disturb that intercourse. The two countries have no 
rivalries, no opposition of interests, no grounds of mutual dis- 
trust ; and the undersigned avails himself of this opportunity 
to express his earnest hope, that the harmony now insured by 
the stipulations of a fair and equal treaty may long continue, 
and to signify, at the same time, the high consideration with 
which he has the honor to regard Mr. De Figaniere e Morao. 

Daniel Webster. 



382 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 



SOUND DUES AT ELSINORE, AND THE ZOLL 
VEREIN UNION. 

Extract from the President' s Message, June 1, 1841. 
The Secretary of State has addressed to me a paper upon 
two subjects, interesting to the commerce of the country, which 
will receive my consideration, and which 1 have the honor to 
communicate to Congress. 

Mr. Webster to the President of the United States. 

Department of State, Washington, May 24, 1841. 

Sir, — There are two subjects connected with the foreign 
commerce of the United States to which the Secretary of State 
considers it to be his duty to call the attention of the President 
at the earliest opportunity. 

The first is, the collection of Sound dues, or the tax payable 
at Elsinore, laid by the Danish government upon the cargoes 
of vessels passing through the Sound, into and out from the 
Baltic Sea. 

The right of Denmark to levy these dues is asserted on the 
ground of ancient usage, coming down from the period when 
that power had possession of both shores of the Belt and Sound. 
However questionable the right or uncertain its origin, it has 
been recognized by European governments in several treaties 
with Denmark, some of them entered into at as early a period 
as the fourteenth century ; and inasmuch as our treaty with 
that power contains a clause putting us on the same footing, in 
this respect, as other the most favored nations, it has been ac- 
quiesced in, or, rather, has not been denied, by us. 

The treaty of 1645, between Denmark and Holland, to which 
a tariff of the principal articles then known in commerce, with 
a rule of measurement and a fixed rate of duty, was appended, 
together with the subsequent one between the same parties in 
1701, amendatory and explanatory of the former, has been 
generally considered as the basis of all subsequent treaties, and 
among them of our own, concluded in 1826, and limited to con- 
tinue ten years from its date, and further until the end of one 
year after notice by either party of an intention to terminate 
it, and which is still in force. 

Treaties have also been concluded with Denmark by Great 
Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Prussia, and Brazil, 
by which, with one or two exceptions in their favor, they are 
placed on the same footing as the United States. 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 383 

There has recently been a general movement, on the part 
of the northern powers of Europe, with regard to the subject 
of these Sound dues, which seems to afford to this govern- 
ment a favorable opportunity, in conjunction with them, for ex- 
erting itself to obtain some such alteration or modification of 
existing regulations as shall conduce to the freedom and ex- 
tension of our commerce, or, at least, toward relieving it from 
some of the burdens now imposed, which, owing to the nature 
of our trade, operate, in many instances, very unequally and 
unjustly on it in comparison with that of other nations. 

The ancient tariff of 1645, by which the payment of these 
dues was regulated, has never been revised, and by means of 
the various changes which have taken place in commerce since 
that period, and of the alteration in price in many articles 
therein included, chiefly in consequence of the settlement of 
America, and the introduction of her products into general 
commerce, it has become quite inapplicable. 

It is presumed to have been the intention of the framers of 
that tariff to fix a duty of about one per centum ad valorem 
upon the articles therein enumerated ; but the change in value 
of many of those commodities, and the absence of any corre- 
sponding change in the duty, has, in many instances, increased 
the ad valorem from one per centum to three, four, and even 
seven ; and this, generally, upon those articles which form the 
chief exports of the United States, of South America, and the 
West India Islands : such as the articles of cotton, rice, raw 
sugar, tobacco, rum, Campeachy wood, &c. 

On all articles not enumerated in this ancient tariff it is stip- 
ulated, by the treaty of 1701, that the " privileged nations," or 
those who have treaties with Denmark, shall pay an ad valo- 
rem of one per cent. ; but the value of these articles being fixed 
by some rules known only to the Danish government, or at 
least unknown to us, this duty appears uncertain and fluctu- 
ating, and its estimate is very much left to the arbitrary dis- 
cretion of the custom-house officers at Elsinore. 

It has been, by some of the public writers in Denmark, con- 
tended that goods of privileged nations, carried in the vessels 
of unprivileged nations, should not be entitled to the limitation 
of one per centum ad valorem, but should be taxed one und a 
quarter per centum, the amount levied on the goods of unpriv- 
ileged nations ; and, also, that this limitation should be confined 
to the direct trade ; so that vessels coming from or bound to 
the ports of a nation not in treaty with Denmark should pay 
on their cargoes the additional quarter per cent. 

These questions, although the former is not of so much con- 
sequence to us, who are our own carriers, are still, in con- 
nection with each other, of sufficient importance to render a 



384 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

decision upon them, and a final understanding, extremely de- 
sirable. 

These Sound dues are, moreover, in addition to the port 
charges of light money, pass money, &c, which are quite equal 
to the rates charged at other places, and the payment of which, 
together with the Sound dues, often causes to vessels consider- 
able delay at Elsinore. 

The port charges, which are usual among all nations to 
whose ports vessels resort, are unobjectionable, except that, in 
this case, they are mere consequences of the imposition of the 
Sound dues, following, necessarily, upon the compulsory delay 
at Elsinore of vessels bound up and down the Sound with car- 
goes, with no intention of making any importation into any 
port of Denmark, and having no other occasion for delay at 
Elsinore than that which arises from the necessity of paying 
the Sound dues, and, in so doing, involuntarily subjecting them- 
selves to these other demands. 

These port duties would appear to have some reason in 
them, because of the equivalent ; while, in fact, they are made 
requisite, with the exception, perhaps, of the expense of lights, 
by the delay necessary for the payment of the Sound dues. 

The amount of our commerce with Denmark, direct, is in- 
considerable, compared with that of our transactions with Rus- 
sia, Sweden, and the ports of Prussia, and the Germanic Asso- 
ciation on the Baltic ; but the sum annually paid to that gov- 
ernment in Sound dues, and the consequent port charges, by 
our vessels alone, is estimated at something over one hundred 
thousand dollars. 

The greater proportion of this amount is paid by the articles 
of cotton, sugar, tobacco, and rice ; the first and last of these 
paying a duty of about three per cent, ad valorem, reckoning 
their value at the places whence they come. 

By a list published at Elsinore in 1840, it appears that be- 
tween April and November of that year seventy-two Amer- 
ican vessels, comparatively a small number, lowered their top- 
sails before the Castle of Cronberg. These were all bound up 
the Sound to ports on the Baltic, with cargoes composed, in 
part, of the above-named products, upon which alone, accord- 
ing to the tariff, was paid a sum exceeding forty thousand 
dollars for these dues. 

Having disposed of these cargoes, they returned laden with 
the usual productions of the countries on the Baltic, on which, 
in like manner, were paid duties on going out through the 
Sound, again acknowledging the tribute by an inconvenient 
and sometimes hazardous ceremony. 

The whole amount thus paid within a period of eight months 
on inward and outward bound cargoes, by vessels of the United 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 385 

States, none of which were bound for, or intended to stop at 
any port in Denmark, except compulsorily at Elsinore, for the 
purpose of complying with these exactions, must have exceed- 
ed the large sum above named. 

I have, therefore, thought proper to bring this subject before 
you at this time, and to go into these general statements in re- 
lation to it, which might be carried more into detail, and sub- 
stantiated by documents now in the department, to the end 
that, if you should deem it expedient, instructions may be given 
to the representative of the United States at Denmark, to enter 
into friendly negotiations with that government, with a view 
of securing to the commerce of the United States a full par- 
ticipation in any reduction of these duties, or the benefits re- 
sulting from any new arrangements respecting them, which 
may be grantedto the commerce of other states. 

The other subject which, in the opinion of the Secretary, 
demands the early consideration of the government, is the Ger- 
manic Association, or Customs Union, established in Germany, 
and now in successful operation under the leading auspices of 
the government of Prussia. This important association has 
for its objects the union of many of the German states into one 
body, for the purpose of establishing uniform regulations of 
commerce ; uniform duties of importation, exportation, and 
transit ; a system of uniform weights and measures, and a uni- 
form coinage throughout all the members of the association ; 
objects resembling, as will be perceived, important purposes 
contemplated by the establishment of the general government 
of the United States. 

In all the states of the association the greatest variety and 
diversity had previously existed. Each had its own circle of 
custom-houses, and its peculiar system of duties, constituting 
them in these respects foreign countries to one another. The 
effect of these diversities upon trade and manufactures may 
easily be supposed to have been highly prejudicial to the gen- 
eral commerce of the country. 

To Prussia, who had labored for years to bring about this 
commercial revolution in Germany, chiefly belongs the credit 
of its accomplishment. She has united the members of the 
confederation in a treaty which establishes one tariff for .-ill. 
the duties to be collected on the frontiers of what now forms 
one great commercial league. The net revenues arising from 
the duties are divided among the several states in proportion 
to their respective amounts of population, every article, salt 
and playing-cards excepted, having once paid the duties en 
the frontier, being permitted to circulate freely among all the 
states of the Union without any additional impost. 

The treaty was concluded in 1834, and was to continue in 

Bb 



38G 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 



force until the 1st of January, 1842 ; and if, during that term, 
and at latest two years before its expiration, the contrary 
should not be declared, for twelve years more ; and afterward, 
from twelve years to twelve years ; it has recently, under these 
provisions, been renewed for another term of twelve years. 
The effect of this confederation has probably been to give to 
Prussia and Germany a new weight in the political balance of 
Europe ; but it is principally interesting to the United States 
in its commercial tendencies, and in the hopes which it encour- 
ages of furnishing an enlarged consumption of some of the 
staple articles of our production, such as cotton, tobacco, and 
rice. The German Commercial and Customs Association 
comprises an ample territory, abounding in wealth, industry, 
population, and resources of every description. The states in- 
cluded in it are. 



States. 
The kingdom of Prussia . 
The kingdom of Bavaria . 
The kingdom of Wurtemberg . 
The kingdom of Saxony . 
The Grand Duchy of Baden 
Electorate of Hesse .... 
Grand Duchy of Hesse (with Homburg) 
Duchy of Nassau .... 
The Thuringian Union 



Free city of Frankfort on the Maine 



Total 



Population. 

14,271,530 

4,315, 4G9 

1,649,839 

1,652,114 

1,277,403 

704,700 

807,671 

386,221 

908,478 

54,000 



26,027,425 

an inclination 
ch she is now 



It is understood that Brunswick has exhibited 
to separate from the Northwestern Union, of wh 
a member, and to join the association ; and the accession of 
the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg is likely soon to swell still 
higher the total population of the states thus united, which con- 
stitutes already the most industrious, enlightened, and prosper- 
ous people of Germany. 

Three of the German states have not yet acceded to the as- 
sociation, but have formed a separate Commercial and Cus- 
toms Union, viz. : 

States. Population. 

The kingdom of Hanover 1,772,107 

The Grand Duchy of Oldenburg 266.536 

The Duchy of Brunswick 251,000 

Total . . 2,289,643 

And a few of the states of Germany have neither acceded 
to the association, nor formed any special union among them- 
selves ; these are, 



States. 
The Duchies of Holstein and Lunenburg (belonging to the King of 
Denmark) ........ 

The Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg Schwerin . 

The Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg Strelitz 

The Hanseatic cities of Liibeck, Hamburg, and Bremen 

Tota 



Population. 

471.276 

482,925 

89,528 

245.500 



1,289,229 



DIPLOMATIC AXD OFFICIAL I>APERS. 387 

In the accomplishment of her great political object, Prussia 
has been compelled to make considerable pecuniary sacrifices, 
her revenues from the customs being less than before the for- 
mation of the association ; though this falling off has been grad- 
ually lessening, owing to the increased population and pros- 
perity of the kingdom. The attempts made to adjust and com- 
pensate this loss have not been successful ; but it is believed 
that the difficulty will be removed by allowing Prussia to levy, 
for her own exclusive benefit, the transit duties on cotton and 
other commodities without any material change in the general 
system. 

The net revenues of the association have increased from 
about 12,000,000 thalers, collected in 1834, the year of its first 
establishment, to upward of 20,000,000, the present amount, 
exclusive of the expense of collection, amounting to 12^- per 
cent. ; a prodigious increase, and mainly owing to the rapidly- 
increasing prosperity, and, consequently, augmented consump- 
tion of the German states associated in the League. 

With Hanover, the United States has recently concluded a 
treaty of commerce and navigation, through the agency of 
Mr. Wheaton, minister of the United States at Berlin, which 
has been ratified. This treaty differs from our commercial 
treaties with Prussia, the Hanseatic towns, and Denmark, by 
confining the indirect trade to the productions of the kingdom 
of Hanover, and oi any other country of the confederation, on 
the one side ; and, on the other, to the productions of the Unit- 
ed States, and of the South American continent and West 
India islands. It gives us the right of carrying to Hanover in 
our vessels the productions of the United States, and of the 
North and South American continent and islands, in exchange 
for their right of bringing in Hanoverian vessels to the United 
States the productions of Hanover, and the countries compos- 
ing the confederation, and may be regarded as favorable to our 
navigation. 

Several states of the League have manifested dispositions to 
form treaties with the United States upon a similar basis ; but 
it is not intended, on this occasion, to express any opinion upon 
the policy of establishing the principle of entire reciprocity in 
commercial treaties with the minor states of Europe. 

One of the advantages already acquired by the negotiations 
of our minister at Berlin, is a considerable reduction of the du- 
ties on rice, which, under a resolution of the House of Repre- 
sentatives of the 11th of June, 1838, he was instructed to en- 
deavor to procure. This important object has been gained, 
and the consequences, as foreseen, were immediately beneficial 
to all parties. A great increase in the importation of Carolina 
rice, which took place as soon as the reduction of duty on the 



388 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

article became known, was followed by a correspondent in- 
crease of revenue drawn from its increased consumption in 
Germany. The success of this experiment encourages the 
belief that a like course in respect to other important staples 
would be followed by similar results. 

The tobacco duties, however, serving as they do the two- 
fold purpose of raising revenue and of protecting the culture 
of the tobacco of native growth in Germany, still find for- 
midable obstacles in the way of their removal or modification. 
The state of the negotiations on this subject up to the session 
of 1839 and 1840, is sufficiently explained in the correspond- 
ence transmitted to the House of Representatives with the 
President's Message of the 14th of April, 1840. 

Several of the states of the Germanic Association have no 
natural outlet to the sea. Their commerce, therefore, is car- 
ried on through rivers, the mouths of which open to the ocean 
in the territories of other powers. This shows the importance 
of the union to all the states composing it ; but as the union 
itself is not a government, commercial stipulations and conven- 
tions must be made with the states of the Union in their polit- 
ical capacities. By a paper annexed, marked A, it will ap- 
pear that, in March last, Great Britain entered into a conven- 
tion of commerce and navigation with Prussia, Bavaria, Sax- 
ony, Wurtemberg, Baden, the Electorate of Hesse, the Grand 
Duchy of Hesse, the states forming the customs and commer- 
cial union of Thuringia, Nassau, and Frankfort ; and similar 
arrangements with these states might probably be accom- 
plished by the government of the United States. 

Such being the general nature of the association, and such 
our commercial intercourse with it, it becomes matter of inter- 
est to consider how far our relations with its several members 
might be beneficially extended ; and if it be thought advisable 
to enter into commercial treaties with them or any of them, it 
will remain to be determined whether powers for such a pur- 
pose should be conferred upon the minister of the United States 
at Berlin, or some other diplomatic agency adopted ; the gen- 
eral object being to seek the means of enlarging the consump- 
tion of the staples of the United States in Germany, and of se- 
curing all practicable benefit to their navigation. 

There is another part of the subject of our connection with 
Germany, which, though of less consequence than those that 
have been pointed out, is, nevertheless, one which deeply con- 
cerns the numerous German emigrants who are constantly sell- 
ing their property to proceed to the United States, as well as 
our naturalized citizens, natives of Germany, inheriting prop- 
erty in that country. Throughout Germany the droit d'aubaine 
and the droit de detraction exist in the shape of a tax, payable 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 389 

on the withdrawal from the country of personal property which 
has been inherited by will or succession, or which forms the 
proceeds of real property inherited in the same manner. In 
the United States, as all know, no such tax exists. 

It is probable that an exemption from this tax might be ob- 
tained on the ground of reciprocity. Some of the states have 
intimated their willingness to enter into arrangements for that 
purpose. If there should be thought to be no other reason for 
a formal convention, this particular object might be effected 
by a simple official declaration, signed by the Secretary ot 
State, under the seal of the department, certifying that the sub- 
jects and citizens of Germany enjoy this immunity in the United 
States ; upon which there is reason to believe that an altera- 
tion in their own laws would be made by the states, or some 
of them, so as to make the right reciprocal. The form of a 
declaration, such as is stated above, has been adopted by the 
English government, as may be seen by a paper hereunto an- 
nexed, marked B. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

Daniel Webster. 

To the President of the United States. 



[A.] 

COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION. 

Convention of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain 
on the one part, and Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Wiirtemberg, 
Baden the Electorate of Hesse, the Grand Duchy of Hesse, 
the States forming the Customs and Commercial Union of 
Thuringia, Nassau, and Frankfort, on the other p art. 

Art. 1. In consideration of the circumstance that British 
vessels are admitted, together with their cargoes, to enter into 
the ports of Prussia, and of the other states of the afore-named 
union of customs, when coming from the ports of all countries, 
and in consideration of the concessions stipulated in this pres- 
ent convention for British trade with all the states of this union 
of customs ; in consideration, also, of the facility which the 
application of steam power to inland navigation affords for the 
conveyance of produce and merchandise of all kinds up and 
down rivers ; and in consideration of the new opening which 
may by these means be given to the trade and navigation be- 
tween the United Kingdom and the British possessions abroad. 
on the one hand, and the states now composing the union of 
customs on the other ; some of which states use. as the natural 



390 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

outlet of their commerce, ports not within their own domin- 
ions ; it is agreed that, from and after the date of the exchange 
of the ratifications of this present convention, Prussian vessels, 
and the vessels of the other states forming the said union of 
customs, together with their cargoes, consisting of all such 
goods as can be legally imported into the United Kingdom 
and the British possessions abroad, by the said vessels, from 
the ports of the countries to which they respectively belong, 
shall, when coming from the mouths of the Meuse, of the Ems, 
of the Weser, and of the Elbe, or from the mouths of any nav- 
igable river lying between the Elbe and the Meuse, and form- 
ing the means of communication between the sea and the ter- 
ritory of any of the German states which are parties to this 
treaty, be admitted into the ports of the United Kingdom, and 
of the British possessions abroad, in as full and ample a manner 
as if the ports from which such vessels may have come, as 
aforesaid, were within the dominions of Prussia, or of any other 
of the states aforesaid ; and such vessels shall be permitted to 
import the goods above mentioned upon the same terms on 
which the said goods might be imported if coming from the 
national ports of such vessels ; and also that, in like manner, 
such vessels proceeding from Great Britain and her colonial 
possessions abroad to the ports or places thus referred to, shall 
be treated as if returning to a Prussian Baltic port, it being 
understood that these privileges are to extend to the vessels of 
Prussia and of the states aforesaid, and to their cargoes, only 
in respect to each of the said ports in which British vessels 
and their cargoes shall, upon their arrival thereat, and depart- 
ure therefrom, continue to be placed on the same footing as the 
vessels of Prussia and of the other states of the Union. 

Art. 2. His majesty the King of Prussia, in his own name, 
and in the name of the states aforesaid, agrees to place, always 
and in every way, the trade and navigation of the subjects ot 
her Britannic majesty, in respect to the importation of sugar 
and rice, upon the same footing as that of the most favored 
nation. 

Art. 3. In the event of other German states joining the Ger- 
manic Union of Customs, it is hereby agreed that such other 
states shall be included in all the stipulations of the present 
convention. 

Art. 4. The present convention shall be in force until the 1st 
of January, 1842, and further for the term of six years, provided 
neither of the high contracting parties shall have given to the 
other six months' previous notice that the same shall cease to 
be in force on the said 1st of January, 1842; and if neither 
party shall have given to the other six months' previous no- 
tice "that the present convention shall cease on the 1st day ot 



DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 391 

January, 1848, then the present convention shall further re- 
main in force until the 1st day of January, 1854, and further, 
until the end of twelve months after either of the high contract- 
ing parties shall have given notice to the other of its intention 
to terminate the same, each of the high contracting parties re- 
serving to itself the right of giving such notice to the other ; 
and it is hereby agreed between them, that at the expiration of 
twelve months after such notice shall have been received by 
either party from the other, this convention and all the pro- 
visions thereof shall altogether cease and determine. 

Art. 5. The present convention shall be ratified, and the rat- 
ifications thereof shall be exchanged at London, at the expira- 
tion of two months, or sooner, if possible. 

In witness whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries have 
signed the same, and have affixed thereunto the seals of their 
arms. 

Done at London the second day of March, in the year of 
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-one. 

[l. s.] Palmerston. 

[l. s.] H. Labouchere. 



[B.] 

Declarations relative to the Duties payable on the Withdrawal 
of the Property of Foreigners from Great Britain and Bava- 
ria, April, 1830. 

BAVARIAN DECLARATION. 

Sa Majeste le Roi de Baviere, Comte Palatin du Rhin. Due 
de Baviere, de Franconie et en Souabe, ayant eu connaissance 
que d'apres les lois en vigueur dans le Royaume Unis de la 
Grande Bretagne et d'Irlande, il ne se percoit aucun droit quel- 
conque a. raison de l'exportation et du transport des heritages 
et autres proprietes appartenant a des sujets Bavarois, le sous- 
signe, Ministre d'Etat ayant le Departement de la Maison du 
Roi et des Affaires Etrangeres, declare par ces presentes, au 
nom du gouvernement de sa majeste, qu'aucune retenue ne 
sera desormais exercee sous le titre de droits d'aubaine ou de 
detraction sur les heritages et autres biens echus en Baviere a 
des sujets de sa majeste Britannique, et que fabolition de ces 
droits en faveur de ceux-ci aura son plein et entier effet, non 
seulement dans touts les cas a venir, tant que les lois ne seront 
pas changees a cet egard dans le Royaume de la Grande Bre- 
tagne ; mais encore dans touts ceux ou jusqu'au jour de la sig- 
nature du present acte, les droits ainsi abolis n'auront pas effec- 
tivement et definitivement ete percus. 



392 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 

En foi de quoi, cette declaration, destinee a etre echangee 
contre une declaration semblable de la part da gouvernement 
de sa majeste Britannique, assurant une parfaite reciprocite 
aux sujets Bavarois, a ete delivree par le Ministre d'Etat sous- 
signe, et munie du sceau de ses armes. 

Fait a Munic, ce lOme jour du mois d'Avril, en l'an de grace 
1836. 

[l. s.] Le Baron De Gise. 



BRITISH DECLARATION. 

The undersigned, his Britannic majesty's principal Secretary 
of State for Foreign Affairs, certifies by these presents, that the 
subjects of his majesty the King of Bavaria are at liberty to 
withdraw their property from the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Ireland, without being called upon to pay any duty, 
as aliens, on the withdrawal of it, and without paying any other 
duty than such as the subjects of his Britannic majesty are 
equally liable to pay. 

In witness whereof, the undersigned has signed the present 
declaration, and has affixed thereto the seal of his arms. 

Done at London the 30th day of April, in the year of our 
Lord 1836. 

[l. s.] Palmerston. 



THE END. 



LBJeDS Jklt' 



